Key Takeaways
- ESG-related rating actions fell to about 100 per month in October and November, from a monthly average of 200 from July to September. This brings the total number of ESG-related rating actions during April-November to nearly 2,300.
- The bulk (over 98%) of ESG effects have related to health and safety (COVID-19). The most affected have been sovereign and local government ratings, air travel and mass transport, media and leisure, higher education, and retail, as well as restaurants, hotels, and conference centers, with knock-on effects on CMBS.
- As a percentage of total ESG and non-ESG rating actions over April-November, ESG-related actions accounted for as much as three-quarters of actions on sovereign/international public finance entities and one-third of U.S. public finance actions. For corporate and infrastructure entities, ESG factors contributed to one in three rating actions; bear in mind that we only treat COVID-19 as an ESG factor if it has direct health and safety effects on an entity's activities, not as a result of the economic crisis. In structured finance, ESG influenced about one in four rating actions.
Chart 1
Chart 2
Chart 3
In our report, "Reimagining Accounting To Measure Climate Change Risks," published Dec. 4, 2020, we opine on the benefits of greater balance-sheet recognition of actual and potential climate-related liabilities. This would enable users of financial statements to shift qualitative measures of climate exposures to more quantitative assessments.
IFRS only requires an entity to recognize an on-balance-sheet provision if the payment is "probable" (that is, the likelihood of payment is greater than 50%) and the amount can be estimated reliably. Under U.S. GAAP the interpretation of "probable" has an even higher threshold. If the identified present obligation would only result in "possible" cash outflows, no provision would be recognized but a contingent liability needs to be disclosed. And the disclosure requirement falls away when the payment becomes even less likely or "remote".
With the current strict provision-recognition criteria requiring future cash flows to be probable or more likely than not, most climate-related risks do not result in on-balance-sheet accrual. Today, both climate physical and transition risks tend to fail this test due to the unpredictability of the timing and quantum of their impact.
S&P Global highlights three potential improvements:
- Set a lower threshold than "probable" for the provision recognition criteria in order to crystallize liabilities earlier.
- Apply a probability-adjusted approach to measure the liability, such that events carrying a 51% versus 49% likelihood get proportional rather than binary recognition.
- Redefine/introduce disclosure norms for carbon pricing or, more generally, a pollution pricing mechanism (PPM) given that emissions will increasingly become a transition risk in view of net zero carbon commitments by many countries. Even if the effect may not be material today, more forward-looking information--explaining how potential future carbon-pricing risks affect an issuer's income and cash flow statements--could notably enhance the understanding of credit-relevant risks.
We believe a bolder reimagining of financial reporting could be even better so that capital markets can be driven more by sustainability considerations. Harvard Business School has recently developed a concept called Impact Weighted Accounts. These are line items in a set of financial statements (including the income statement, balance sheet, and statement of cash flows) that supplement the standard picture of a company's financial health and performance with additional information about how the company is affecting employees, customers, the environment, and wider society.
Why And How ESG Matters To Airport Ratings
We believe social factors, including potentially more frequent health and safety emergencies--which we classify as an ESG credit factor given the direct impact on airports and airlines--have become at least as important as environmental risks in their propensity to significantly disrupt airports' operations.
The WHO believes that changes in the way humanity inhabits the planet is rendering new diseases inevitable, while global connectivity accelerates their spread. We have seen four global outbreaks this century, all much easier to isolate than the current virus though, but with higher mortality rates: severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) hit in 2002-2003; Swine Flu in 2009; Ebola in 2014-2016; and Zika in 2014-2015. Airport operators will need to incorporate the health and safety learnings of the current pandemic into long-term planning and protocols.
As for environmental risks, we foresee ever-greater transition risks (greenhouse gas emissions, for example) via potential carbon taxation or government-led climate-friendly policies. Long term, increasing exposure to chronic and acute physical climate events requires building resilience into airports' assets:
- More frequent extreme weather events, such as storms and flooding from heavy rains and/or overflowing of nearby rivers. Following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, we lowered the S&P Underlying Rating (SPUR) on New Orleans Aviation Board (NOAB) to 'BB' from 'A'. Physical damage was limited, but the rating action reflected the uncertain recovery in the regional economy, including tourism.
- Chronic long-term increases in temperatures and, therefore, more heatwave days. This has a direct impact on airlines and therefore on airport passenger capacity, as flights are subject to additional take-off weight restrictions. Take-off weight restrictions mean that aircraft can carry fewer passengers: a recent study by Pek and Caldecott (2020) for a Boeing 737-800 said a load reduction requirement of 4,536 kg translates into 28% less capacity. Adaptation strategies may include extending runways, improving aircraft technology, and changing flight schedules to cooler times of the day.
- Rising sea levels, a particular risk for U.S. coastal airports notably beyond 2050. San Francisco International Airport last year announced a project to build a sea wall around its 10-mile perimeter at a cost of $587 million. Hong Kong International Airport, build on land reclaimed from the sea, is building a 13.4 km sea wall, more than 6.5 meters above sea level, around its new third runway.
- Last but not least, shifting weather patterns may lead to more structural demand changes in both tourism and business traffic. Cooler regions could gain increasing favor in the hotter summer months, but regions with a steep increase in heat waves or hurricanes could suffer.
RELATED RESEARCH
- How COVID-19 And ESG Factors Are Weighing On Airports' Credit Quality, Dec. 10, 2020
- Scenario Analysis Shines A Light On Climate Exposure: Focus On Major Airports, Nov. 5, 2020
Sovereigns And International Public Finance
COVID-19 continues to weigh on budget deficits and debt increases, while underscoring the importance of inequality and social stability
Table 1
| Sovereign/IPF | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereign ESG-related rating actions | ||||||||||
| Oct | Nov | Apr-Nov | % of total ratings affected | |||||||
| Downgrade | 5 | 2 | 18 | |||||||
| CreditWatch Neg | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| Negative Outlook revision | 1 | 1 | 40 | |||||||
| Total ESG-related rating actions | 6 | 3 | 60 | 27 | ||||||
| ESG--Environmental, social, and governance. Data as of Sept. 30, 2020. Source: S&P Global Ratings. | ||||||||||
Table 2
| International Public Finance ESG-related Rating Actions | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct | Nov | Apr-Nov | % of total ratings affected | |||||||
| Downgrade | 1 | 1 | 8 | |||||||
| CreditWatch Neg | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||||||
| Negative Outlook revision | 4 | 4 | 58 | |||||||
| Total ESG-related rating actions | 6 | 5 | 68 | 20 | ||||||
| Data as of Sept. 30, 2020. Source: S&P Global Ratings. | ||||||||||
Case Study: Morocco Outlook Revised To Negative On COVID-19-Induced Rise In Debt And External Financing Needs; Ratings Affirmed
On Oct. 2, 2020, we revised the outlook on Morocco to negative, projecting that its budgetary and external positions will deteriorate materially more than anticipated because of severe COVID-19 economic fallout. We now expect the budgetary deficit in 2020 to reach about 7.7% of GDP with net general government debt surpassing 60% of GDP and a significant rise in contingent liabilities linked to the state guarantees extended to the private sector.
We believe that Morocco has largely demonstrated political and social stability, especially following the Arab Spring. It achieved this through constitutional reforms, a rise in government spending aimed at economic development, and a reduction of economic inequality in less developed regions. Although ethnic, tribal, religious, and regional divisions are less pronounced in Morocco than in much of the Middle East and North Africa, parts of the Moroccan population are increasingly demanding more inclusive economic growth. In our view, this partially stems from high unemployment among youth and the income disparities between more- and less-developed areas, which we expect to widen further because of the pandemic. National unemployment is on the rise, and we expect the differences among population segments to become more pronounced in the wake of the recession.
Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) credit factors for this credit rating change:
- Health and safety
Case Study: City of Zagreb Downgraded To 'BB-' On Reconstruction Costs; Outlook Negative
On Sept. 25, 2020, We have lowered our long-term rating on Zagreb, given our view that its contingent liabilities will increase substantially in light of a newly passed law under which the city will have to cover 20% of repair costs from the March earthquakes. According to current estimates, the cost to Zagreb may exceed the city's annual budget by more 2x, although it would be spread over more than a decade. We note that current estimates for the costs are about HRK86 billion (about US$11 billion) for the 25,000 buildings that were damaged by two earthquakes on March 22, 2020, in Zagreb. This leaves the city with costs of about HRK17 billion. We acknowledge that the reconstruction efforts will be spread over at least a decade, and Zagreb's corresponding share in the funding might be subject to support from the central government and the EU.
Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) credit factors for this credit rating change:
- Health and safety
- Environmental factors
U.S. Public Finance
Health and safety social risks continued to dominate ESG-driven rating actions in October and November
Table 3
| U.S. Public Finance ESG-Related Rating Actions | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct | Nov | Apr-Nov | % of total ratings affected | |||||||
| Downgrade | 20 | 17 | 153 | |||||||
| CreditWatch Neg | 0 | 0 | 95 | |||||||
| Negative Outlook revision | 3 | 1 | 491 | |||||||
| Total ESG related Rating actions | 23 | 18 | 740 | 4 | ||||||
| o/w State and local governments | 7 | 4 | 292 | 2 | ||||||
| o/w Higher Education | 5 | 5 | 193 | 32 | ||||||
| o/w Health Care | 0 | 0 | 51 | 11 | ||||||
| o/w Utilities | 0 | 0 | 30 | 2 | ||||||
| o/w Housing | 0 | 0 | 25 | 7 | ||||||
| o/w Charter Schools | 0 | 1 | 17 | 5 | ||||||
| o/w Transportation* | 11 | 8 | 132 | 54 | ||||||
| Data is as of Nov. 30, 2020. *Excludes 187 negative outlook revisions on March 26 on almost all public transportation infrastructure issuers. Source: S&P Global Ratings. | ||||||||||
Health and safety factors dominated our ESG-driven rating actions in U.S. public finance (36 out of a total of 41) in October-November. We also took five actions influenced by governance weaknesses.
Of the 36 health and safety rating actions, 31 were in higher education and not-for-profit transportation enterprises--showing the ongoing pandemic-related pressures these sectors face. We downgraded to 'CCC' from 'B' a higher education housing project at the University of North Texas in Denton, Texas, reflecting the project's continued weak and speculative business fundamentals amplified by the pandemic and its effect on occupancy during fiscal 2021. As of fall 2020, occupancy was 73.5% compared to 95.0% in spring 2020--a direct result of COVID-19. We anticipate further pressure, including a potential default that could occur as early as fiscal 2022 should occupancy remain weak or the housing corporation experiences further pressure.
We also took two state-level rating actions in October and November, rare throughout the pandemic (see case studies). Both actions demonstrate the long tail of recovery expected for the leisure and hospitality sector, even if a broader economic recovery occurs by mid-2022 as recently detailed by S&P Global Ratings Economics' report "Staying Home for the Holidays," published Dec. 2, 2020.
Case Study: Mississippi Gaming Tax Revenue Bond Rating Lowered Two Notches To 'A-' On Revenue Disruption, COVID-19 Risks
On Oct. 2, 2020, we lowered the rating for the State of Mississippi's bonds secured by casino gaming taxes to 'A-' from 'A+' reflecting our view that the state's decision to halt gaming operations between March 2020 and May 2020 in an effort to protect the public from health and safety risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic lead to severe revenue deterioration and two months of shortfalls in monthly set-asides to debt service accounts before improving in June 2020.
Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) credit factors for this credit rating change:
- Health and safety
Case Study: Massachusetts' Series 2004 And 2005 Bonds Downgraded To 'BBB+' From 'A' On Drop In Pledge Tax Revenue; Outlook Negative
On Nov. 25, 2020, we lowered the rating for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts bonds secured by hotel lodging occupancy taxes to 'BBB+' from 'A'. The downgrade reflects a significant drop in pledged tax revenue as a result of pandemic-related restrictions on economic activity, and S&P Global Ratings' assessment that national hotel-related economic activity might take until 2023 to recover (see "The U.S. Lodging Sector: A Slower Recovery Could Take Until 2023," published Nov. 5, 2020, on RatingsDirect). The Massachusetts Convention Center Authority projects pledged revenue in fiscal 2021 to only barely cover annual debt service at 1.03x. This is a large turnaround from the high 3.01x coverage of annual debt service that occurred in fiscal 2019.
Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) credit factors for this credit rating change:
- Health and safety
Corporates And Infrastructure
ESG-driven rating actions continue to be influenced by COVID-19, especially in transport, media, entertainment, and leisure
Table 4
| Corporates And Infrastructure ESG-Related Rating Actions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct | Nov | Apr-Nov | % of total ratings affected | |
| Downgrade | 11 | 16 | 329 | |
| CreditWatch Neg | 0 | 0 | 44 | |
| Negative Outlook revision | 9 | 11 | 202 | |
| Total ESG related Rating actions* | 28 | 33 | 617 | 16 |
| o/w Transportation | 4 | 4 | 92 | 40 |
| o/w Hotels and gaming | 5 | 8 | 85 | 68 |
| o/w Media and Entertainment | 3 | 5 | 65 | 50 |
| o/w Retailing | 1 | 1 | 55 | 43 |
| Data as of Sept. 30, 2020. *Including 42 positive actions. Source: S&P Global Ratings. | ||||
During October and November, ESG-driven rating actions slightly trended down to about 30 actions per month (down from above 40 in previous months). Roughly half of them related to the transport, media, entertainment, and leisure sectors, in which businesses continue to be slammed by COVID-19. See "The U.S. Lodging Sector: A Slower Recovery Could Take Until 2023," published Nov. 5, 2020 and "As COVID-19 Cases Increase, Global Air Traffic Recovery Slows," published Nov. 12, 2020.
Notable rating activity driven by health and safety ESG factors in these sectors included:
- Hotels: We downgraded Playa Hotels & Resorts N.V. to 'CCC+', yet several hotel companies, including Marriott International Inc., Hyatt Hotels Corp. and Host Hotels & Resorts Inc. managed to stay at 'BBB-', albeit now with negative outlooks.
- Gaming: We affirmed and removed from CreditWatch our ratings on several gaming companies, including Las Vegas Sands Corp., Century Casinos, Inc., and Churchill Downs Inc., yet we assigned negative outlooks to reflect ongoing sector challenges.
- Entertainment: We downgraded The Walt Disney Co. to 'BBB+' from 'A-'; see case study. Live Nation Entertainment Inc. was downgraded to 'B' from 'B+' as the company continues to suffer from the global cessation of music concerts. We now believe that a substantial return to live events is not likely until mid-2021.
- Transport: We downgraded Lufthansa again, to 'BB-' from 'BB', reflecting further uncertainty about the recovery of air traffic. Travel restrictions have been renewed in response to a spike in COVID-19 cases and virtual meetings continue to replace face-to-face. SAS AB defaulted on its senior unsecured bond, which it converted partly to common shares, partly into new hybrid notes. We also lowered our ratings on Dutch state-owned railway operator NS Group N.V. to 'A' from 'A+'.
Environmental factors influenced three rating actions. We lowered Peabody Energy Corp. to 'CCC-' from 'CCC+' because of covenant concerns. Declining domestic demand for coal--given coal plant retirements and competition from natural gas and renewable fuels--have kept weighing on the long-term cash-flow sustainability of domestic thermal operations. We downgraded regulated utility Entergy to 'BBB' on storm risks. On the positive side, Public Power Corp. S.A.'s upgrade to 'B' from 'B-' was influenced by both environmental and governance factors. The company's strategic repositioning involved the conversion of its generation mix toward lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, improving its fleet competitiveness and long-term prospects.
There was a silver lining (if at all possible in a pandemic) for 14 issuers. We upgraded outdoor sporting goods retailer Bass Pro Group, LLC to 'B+' from 'B' as more consumers embraced socially distanced entertainment options and hobbies. We upgraded Home Group Inc. for the second time this year, to 'B' from 'B-', on continued strong customer demand for its home decor merchandise amid stay-at-home restrictions. We revised our outlook for Thor Industries, Inc. to positive from negative on an anticipated surge in demand as consumers appear to see RVs as a safe way to enjoy leisure time during the pandemic.
Case Study: Walt Disney Ratings Lowered To 'BBB+' On Continued Affect From Pandemic; Outlook Negative
On Nov. 18, 2020 we lowered our ratings on Walt Disney Co. whose theme park and movie studio operations continue to be severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Theme park recovery will likely trail overall economic recovery. Even after a vaccine is finally available, local and national governments may still impose social distancing restrictions or even capacity utilization limitations on public venues. We also believe many consumers will continue to be reluctant to attend theme parks, or other large public gatherings, even after a COVID-19 vaccine is available. As a result, even if experimental vaccines are highly effective and may be more widely available by mid-2021, we don't expect Disney's parks to return to normal operations until fiscal 2022, even if outdoor theme parks may recover faster than indoor activities.
Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) credit factors for this credit rating change:
- Health and safety
Case Study: Entergy New Orleans LLC Downgraded To 'BBB' From 'BBB+' On Storm Risks, Outlook Negative
On Oct. 8, 2020 we lowered our rating on regulated utility Entergy New Orleans LLC (ENO) to 'BBB' from 'BBB+'. ENO's service territory creates severe storm and hurricane risks for the utility. Given ENO's exposure to severe storms including hurricanes, a low-lying service territory along the Gulf Coast, and relatively limited size and diversity to help absorb the impact of such storms, ENO's SACP remains 'bbb-'.
We revised however our assessment of ENO's group status to parent Entergy, under our group rating methodology to moderately strategic from core. Even if we continue to factor in extraordinary group support in some circumstances, we have concluded that such support has weakened because of the propensity and severity of storm activity along the Gulf Coast, which is critical to a service territory that mostly encompasses a low-lying city that has been in the path of numerous hurricanes.
Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) credit factors for this credit rating change:
- Natural conditions
Financial Services
Financial services experienced very few direct* ESG impacts, while COVID-19 triggered widespread negative outlook revisions
Since the onset of COVID-19 and the oil-price fall, the banking and insurance sectors have seen hardly any rating or outlook changes directly attributable to ESG factors. That said, they have been susceptible to indirect impacts, namely rising credit risks and financial market volatility resulting from the pandemic. As of Oct. 16, 2020, we had taken rating actions on 236 banks for reasons indirectly related to COVID-19 and oil prices, with about three-quarters being outlook revisions. For the insurance sector, we took actions on just under 10% of rated entities (three-quarters of which were outlook changes).
*See Appendix for our approach to direct ESG impacts and indirect non-ESG impact of COVID-19
Structured Finance
ESG-related rating actions in October and November remained concentrated in CMBS
Table 5
| Structured Finance ESG-Related Rating Actions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct | Nov | Apr-Nov | % of total ratings affected | |
| Downgrade | 26 | 60 | 426 | |
| CreditWatch Neg | 6 | 0 | 375 | |
| Negative outlook revision | 0 | 0 | ||
| Total ESG-related rating actions | 32 | 60 | 801 | 1.5 |
| o/w ABS | 1 | 0 | 41 | 1 |
| o/w CMBS | 25 | 54 | 527 | 19 |
| o/w Linked | 0 | 0 | 21 | 0 |
| o/w Non-Traditional* | 0 | 0 | 200 | 16 |
| o/w RMBS | 6 | 6 | 12 | 0 |
| Data as of Nov. 30, 2020. *Nontraditional structured finance asset classes include wholesale, aircraft, container, railcar, timeshare, small business, and triple-net lease securitizations. ESG--Environmental, social, and governance. | ||||
ESG-related rating actions in October and November included 79 downgrades related to commercial mortgage backed securities (CMBS), with several tranches experiencing multi-notch downgrades. In addition, six tranches in three Japanese residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) were placed on CreditWatch negative in October, and subsequently downgraded in November, due to non-COVID-19-related health and safety considerations (see case study below). As most of the initial CreditWatch placements following the spread of COVID-19 have now been resolved, ESG-related rating actions may come down.
However, we anticipate collateral performance of consumer asset classes in structured finance will start to deteriorate by the second half of 2021. This is as financial support measures end and unemployment rises. Similarly, greater credit stress among borrowers in corporate transactions could put pressure on related ratings, including on collateralized loan obligations.
Case Study: Leopard One And Leopard Two Funding RMBS Ratings Lowered On Four Tranches; Remaining Tranches Affirmed & L-Map One Funding RMBS Classes A And B Ratings Lowered To 'AA- (sf)'
On Nov. 25, 2020, we lowered the ratings based on the following factors.
The construction company that built the apartments entered into a master lease agreement with each borrower of the apartment construction loans underlying the transaction. The borrowers continue to repay principal and pay interest on the loans using the stable income from the master leases. As a result, the delinquency and default rates of the pool of loans underlying the transaction have been low since closing. In our rating analysis, we have assumed rent income from apartment buildings will fund repayment of apartment loans after the master lease agreement expires.
The profitability of the apartment buildings that collateralize the apartment loans is deteriorating, as vacancy ratios have been relatively high. Faulty construction cases were found in 2018 and 2019 at apartment buildings that the construction company built. In response to these cases, the company has been conducting inspections of apartment buildings and is doing repair work as needed. However, inspections and repairs are severely behind schedule, partly because of the spread of the coronavirus. The construction company has stopped looking for new tenants for such apartment buildings, and vacancy ratios have been rising.
Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) credit factors for this credit rating change:
- Health and safety
Appendix
COVID-19's direct (ESG) versus indirect (non-ESG) impact
We consider the COVID-19 pandemic a social credit factor when we believe health concerns and social distancing measures have a direct impact on an entity's activities. Put differently, our data presented here exclude rating actions stemming from the recession triggered by the pandemic, and from the downturn in oil and gas that started before the COVID-19 outbreak and is tied to oversupply and a price war. For sovereign ratings, however, we see the pandemic's direct and indirect macroeconomic, fiscal, and external impacts as intertwined and feeding into each other, and therefore consider rating actions triggered by the COVID-19-induced recession as health and safety-related.
For the broader statistics of COVID-19 and oil-related downgrades, see "COVID-19 Activity In U.S. Public Finance," published Nov. 17, 2020; "COVID-19- And Oil Price-Related Public Rating Actions On Corporations, Sovereigns, International Public Finance, And Project Finance To Date," published Nov. 17, 2020, and "COVID-19 Activity In Global Structured Finance As Of Oct. 16, 2020," published Oct. 22, 2020.
We have tagged rating actions tied directly to health and safety concerns as ESG-driven:
One of the clearest examples is airlines, which have seen a significant drop in demand due to travel restrictions to stop the spread of the virus. Other examples include auto dealers, which were forced to close their doors due to social distancing requirements, resulting in lost sales for auto manufacturers. Movie theaters, airports, restaurants and leisure activities were/have been shut down due to the virus and local requirements for social distancing, resulting in a total cessation of revenue streams and limitations on large and social gatherings.
For the purposes of classifying ESG impacts, we excluded indirect rating actions tied to the recession triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic:
For example, the recession may ultimately increase the risk of nonpayments for banks or depress asset values, affecting insurers. While important, we have not flagged these as ESG. Similarly, many corporate sectors are indirectly affected, for instance many consumer products companies have had to reduce their advertising, thereby affecting many media companies. Also, job losses and loss of consumer confidence have stopped buyers from making large consumer products purchases.
Related Research
ESG in ratings industry-related commentaries
- The ESG Pulse: COVID-19 Vaccine Hope As Second Wave Sets In, Nov. 19, 2020
- The ESG Pulse: Better Climate Data Could Provide Foundation For Understanding Physical Risks, Oct. 8, 2020
- The ESG Pulse: The Search For A Vaccine, Aug. 31, 2020
- The ESG Pulse: Social Factors Could Drive More Rating Actions As Health And Inequality Remain In Focus, July 17, 2020
Cross-practice:
- COVID-19- And Oil Price-Related Public Rating Actions On Corporations, Sovereigns, International Public Finance, And Project Finance To Date, Dec. 15, 2020
- Sustainable Finance Addresses Social Justice As COVID-19 Raises The Stakes, Nov. 10, 2020
- Diversity And Inclusion As A Social Imperative, Aug. 3, 2020
- Why Corporations' Responses To George Floyd Protests Matter, July 23, 2020
- The EU Recovery Plan Could Create Its Own Green Safe Asset, July 15, 2020
- Water Conflicts Are Heightening Geopolitical And Social Tensions Globally, July 7, 2020
- A Pandemic-Driven Surge In Social Bond Issuance Shows The Sustainable Debt Market Is Evolving, June 22, 2020
- People Power: COVID-19 Will Redefine Workforce Dynamics In The Post-Pandemic Era, June 4, 2020
- Too Late For Net-Zero Emissions By 2050? The Potential Of Forests And Soils, June 4, 2020
- ESG Insights For Sectors Across Corporates And Financial Services Industries, Feb. 11, 2020
- How ESG Factors Have Begun To Influence Our Project Finance Rating Outcomes, Jan. 27, 2020
Sovereigns and supranationals:
- Global Sovereign Rating Trends Midyear 2020: Outlook Bias Turns Negative As Governments Pile On Debt To Face COVID-19, July 30, 2020
- What The EU Recovery Fund Breakthrough Could Mean For Eurozone Sovereign Ratings, July 22, 2020
- How Multilateral Lending Institutions Are Responding To The COVID-19 Pandemic, June 9, 2020
International public finance:
- Institutional Framework Assessment: Australian States And Territories, Nov. 9, 2020
- ESG Industry Report Card For Non-U.S. Public And Nonprofit Social Housing Providers, Aug. 4, 2020
U.S. public finance:
- Better Data Can Highlight Climate Exposure: Focus On U.S. Public Finance, Aug. 24, 2020
- COVID-19 Activity In U.S. Public Finance, Aug. 21, 2020
- California Public Power Utilities Face Disparate Physical And Credit Exposures To Wildfires, Aug. 4, 2020
- U.S. Municipal Sustainable Debt And Resilience 2020 Outlook: Sprouting More Leaves, March 4, 2020
Corporates and infrastructure:
- How COVID-19 And ESG Factors Are Weighing On Airports' Credit Quality, Dec. 10
- As COVID-19 Cases Increase, Global Air Traffic Recovery Slows, Nov. 12, 2020
- COVID-19 Is A Wake-Up Call For The Food Processing Industry, Oct. 20, 2020
- COVID-19 Heat Map: Updated Sector Views Show Diverging Recoveries, Sept. 29, 2020
- The Growing Importance Of ESG In The Resources Sector, Sept. 9, 2020
- COVID-19 Battered Global Consumer Discretionary Sectors But Lifted Staples; Recovery Varies By Subsector, Aug. 4, 2020
- Retail REITs Will Contend With Retail Distress Until At Least 2021, July 21, 2020
- What Does Pharma's Quest For A COVID-19 Vaccine Mean For Its Credit Quality And ESG Profile?, July 8, 2020
- COVID-19 Heat Map: Post-Crisis Credit Recovery Could Take To 2022 And Beyond For Some Sectors, June 24, 2020
- Infrastructure: Global Toll Roads' Steep Climb Out Of COVID, June 19, 2020
- COVID-19 Accelerates Structural Shifts In Global Office Real Estate And REITs, June 9, 2020
- COVID-19 And The Auto Industry--What's Next?, June 9, 2020
Banks:
- The Greening Of Financial Services: Challenges For Bank And Insurance Green And Sustainability Hybrids, Aug. 12, 2020
- Islamic Finance And ESG: Sharia-Compliant Instruments Can Put The S In ESG, May 27, 2020
- Climate Change: Can Banks Weather The Effects?, Sept. 9, 2019
Insurance:
- COVID-19 Highlights Global Insurance Protection Gap On Climate Change, Sept. 28, 2020
- COVID-19 Pushes Global Reinsurers Farther Out On Thin Ice; Sector Outlook Revised To Negative, May 18, 2020
- Sink Or Swim: The Importance Of Adaptation Projects Rises With Climate Risks, Dec. 3, 2019
Structured finance:
- COVID-19 Activity In Global Structured Finance As Of Oct. 16, 2020, Oct. 22, 2020, 2020
- Credit Concerns Loom On COVID-19 Resurgence, Oct. 21, 2020
ESG in ratings criteria-related commentaries
Cross-practice:
- The Role Of Environmental, Social, And Governance Credit Factors In Our Ratings Analysis, Sept. 12, 2019
Sovereigns and local and regional governments:
- How Environmental, Social, And Governance Factors Help Shape The Ratings On Governments, Insurers, And Financial Institutions, Oct. 23, 2018
U.S. public finance:
- Through the ESG Lens 2.0: A Deeper Dive Into U.S. Public Finance Credit Factors, April 28, 2020
- When U.S. Public Finance Ratings Change, ESG Factors Are Often The Reason, March 28, 2019
Corporates and infrastructure:
- How Management & Governance Risks and Opportunities Factor Into Global Corporate Ratings, Nov. 7, 2018
- How Social Risks And Opportunities Factor Into Global Corporate Ratings, April 11, 2018
- How Environmental And Climate Risks Factor Into Global Corporate Ratings, Oct. 21, 2015
Banks:
- How Environmental, Social, And Governance Factors Help Shape The Ratings On Governments, Insurers, And Financial Institutions, Oct. 23, 2018
Insurance:
- How Environmental, Social, And Governance Factors Help Shape The Ratings On Governments, Insurers, And Financial Institutions, Oct. 23, 2018
Structured finance:
- ESG Credit Factors In Structured Finance, Sept. 19, 2019
This report does not constitute a rating action.
| Primary Credit Analysts: | Karl Nietvelt, Paris + 33 14 420 6751; karl.nietvelt@spglobal.com |
| Nicole Delz Lynch, New York + 1 (212) 438 7846; nicole.lynch@spglobal.com | |
| Patrice Cochelin, Paris + 33144207325; patrice.cochelin@spglobal.com | |
| Nora G Wittstruck, New York + (212) 438-8589; nora.wittstruck@spglobal.com | |
| Matthew S Mitchell, CFA, Paris +33 (0)6 17 23 72 88; matthew.mitchell@spglobal.com | |
| Michael Wilkins, London + 44 20 7176 3528; mike.wilkins@spglobal.com | |
| Kurt E Forsgren, Boston + 1 (617) 530 8308; kurt.forsgren@spglobal.com | |
| Secondary Contacts: | Imre Guba, Madrid + 442071763849; imre.guba@spglobal.com |
| Emmanuel F Volland, Paris + 33 14 420 6696; emmanuel.volland@spglobal.com | |
| Lawrence A Wilkinson, New York + 1 (212) 438 1882; lawrence.wilkinson@spglobal.com | |
| Dennis P Sugrue, London + 44 20 7176 7056; dennis.sugrue@spglobal.com | |
| Peter Kernan, London + 44 20 7176 3618; peter.kernan@spglobal.com | |
| Michael T Ferguson, CFA, CPA, New York + 1 (212) 438 7670; michael.ferguson@spglobal.com | |
| Jesus Palacios, Mexico City (52) 55-5081-2872; jesus.palacios@spglobal.com | |
| Bertrand P Jabouley, CFA, Singapore + 65 6239 6303; bertrand.jabouley@spglobal.com | |
| Timucin Engin, Dubai + 905306817943; timucin.engin@spglobal.com |
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw or suspend such acknowledgment at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.
Any Passwords/user IDs issued by S&P to users are single user-dedicated and may ONLY be used by the individual to whom they have been assigned. No sharing of passwords/user IDs and no simultaneous access via the same password/user ID is permitted. To reprint, translate, or use the data or information other than as provided herein, contact S&P Global Ratings, Client Services, 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041; (1) 212-438-7280 or by e-mail to: research_request@spglobal.com.