Investors are calling for more quantitative metrics around corporate climate change disclosure, with Olivier Rousseau, executive director of the French sovereign wealth fund FRR, calling for mandatory disclosure.

“Data is still lacking and dis-harmonised, which is why we want compulsory disclosure in a number of fields around transition and physical related risks,” he said.

“Besides GHG on a relative and absolute basis, the path for emissions and plans to emit or transition is crucial. It would massively help the investment community.”

Rousseau, who called ESG the financial risk of the future, called for a carbon price as a nice neat solution.

Speaking at the Bank of International Settlements Green Swan conference alongside Rousseau, head of ESG at MSCI, Remy Briand, outlined the lack of basic disclosure around scope 3 emissions.

He said in the universe of 10,000 companies across mid, large and small cap in emerging and developed countries about 40 per cent are disclosing scope 1 and 2 emissions but only 20 per cent are disclosing scope 3.

“Scope 1 and 2 are basic ingredients. We think that is an element that should be mandatory because it is a basic ingredient,” Briand said. “Net zero targets and alignment with a 1.5 degree trajectory will be the centre of this dialogue going forward. Without the core ingredient it is without precision.”

Herman Bril the former executive director of the United Nations Staff Pension Fund who is incoming CEO at Arabesque, says the TCFD is a good candidate to become the global standard but lacks the explicit mention of targets in its framework.

“The TCFD would be a really good candidate to become the global standard, it was launched by a voluntary initiative led by Mike Bloomberg and Mark Carney and it has been been broadly embraced, but something is missing. We can’t win the race to net zero without long term and short term targets,” he said.

Bril points out the guidance for institutional investors by the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance which shows how to incorporate climate risk across all asset classes in the short term and long term.

“That is helpful for investors, and it would be more effective if corporates could also embrace science-based targets.”

He said while the momentum is moving in the right direction he urged regulators and policymakers to step in to accelerate the process.

“The clock is ticking, that is not realised so much by everyone.  This is not a relative game. It is an absolute race,” he said. “The bottom line is we will not win the race to net zero without mandatory disclosure, or emissions data or explicit targets.”

Meanwhile this month IIRC and SASB formerly merged to create the Value Reporting Foundation which offers a comprehensive suite of resources designed to help businesses and investors develop a shared understanding of enterprise value and how it is created, preserved or eroded over time.

Chief executive of the Value Reporting Foundation, Janine Guillot, said the merger was a response to the call from business and investors for more clarity and simplicity in the corporate reporting landscape.

“This merger also better positions us to support key bodies such as the IFRS Foundation and continue to work with our colleagues around the world to drive progress towards a comprehensive corporate reporting system,” she said.

The resources available include the Integrated Thinking Principles which look at how value is created in the short, medium and long term, the Integrated Reporting Framework which supports effective reporting on strategy, governance, performance, prospects and business model through a multi-capital lens, and the SASB Standards which provide investors with consistent, comparable, reliable data on the ESG factors most relevant to financial performance and enterprise value.

Income inequality is limiting economic growth, creating more frequent and deeper recessions, and increasing social instability. While the social challenges and issues stemming from inequality have been understood for decades, the economic impact of extreme inequality has only recently been studied.

According to the IMF, when the income share of a country’s wealthiest 20 per cent of people increases by just 1 per cent, GDP growth is 0.08 per cent lower in the subsequent five years, whereas an increase in the income share of a country’s poorest 20 per cent of people is associated with 0.38 per cent higher growth.

Disparities between population segments can also limit growth. The wage gap between black and white Americans accounts for as much as 0.2 per cent in lost GDP each year. By addressing the wage gap between men and women globally, countries would add 0.6 per cent to their GDP annually.

Clearly, income inequality hurts long-term profits and weakens our financial system, and it is past time for investors to take on this challenge. This is a broad, systemic challenge we are facing as a society, and it requires equally ambitious action from investors to change their investment approaches to address income inequality, improve the long-term health of the markets, while also still operating profitably and enjoying competitive returns.

A new toolkit from The Investment Integration Project, with support from the Generation Foundation, applies principles of systems-level investing to show how investors can confront income inequality and take actions that enhance their current policies and practices. The toolkit, Confronting Income Inequality, reviews a range of conventional and advanced techniques and tools at the disposal of asset owners and asset managers to address income inequality.

Conventional techniques – such as portfolio construction, engagement, manager due diligence, and policies and beliefs about the functioning of markets – are a part of daily practice for all investors. These familiar activities can be extended beyond portfolio construction and risk management to encompass the systemic risk of income inequality as well.

Advanced, system-level investing techniques can be used to influence the rules of the game and the culture within which the investment community operates to minimise the systemic risk and maximise potential rewards. These techniques can be grouped according to three broad or overarching tactics: field building, investment enhancement, and opportunity generation. As broad categories they show the path forward for the practice of system-level investment: first, investors start working more collectively (field building), then change the way they make investments (investment enhancement), and then create investment opportunities that will improve systems (opportunity generation). These techniques, which are the foundation of system-level investing, vary in their usefulness from asset class to asset class, and in how they can be applied to specific systemic issues.

One clear opportunity for investors in these advanced investing techniques is around calls for fair compensation and a living wage. The Platform Living Wage Financials (PLWF) is a collaborative effort of 15 financial institutions with more than $3 trillion in assets that encourages companies using manual labor (e.g., garment and footwear, food, and beverage) to pay workers a living wage that enables them, at minimum, to cover basic living expenses in accordance with International Labour Organisation (ILO), OECD, and UN guidelines and principles. The PLWF investor members identify and highlight companies with best practices and encourage progress in consideration of this issue throughout entire industries. In 2019, the UN’s PRI singled out the PLWF for praise for this active ownership project, which has led to various firms incorporating living wage policies into their management practices.

Another area of opportunity is decreasing the pay gap between men and women and other underrepresented groups. In 2017, the United Kingdom required companies with more than 250 employees to report on and publish their employee pay gaps each year. Companies must disclose the disparities in hourly, bonus, and overall pay between men and women. The UK government enforces these mandates and failure to comply can result in legal action and fines. In 2019, 100 per cent of these companies with over 250 employees reported this data to the UK government, with the gender pay gap for all workers falling from 17.4 per cent in 2019 to 15.5 per cent in 2020. Investors can and should support these types of disclosures within their investment portfolios.

Investors can also support the strengthening and improvement of workforce policies and practices through the disclosure of labor-related data. The UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trusts’ Human Capital Management Coalition, supported by 32 institutional investors with $6 trillion in assets under management, petitioned the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2017 to require companies to disclosure human capital management policies and practices, asserting that such disclosures are “fundamental to human capital analysis.” These policies and practices included workforce culture and empowerment, workforce health and safety, human rights, and workforce compensation and incentives.

Lastly, investors can support the right of workers to organise unions and engage in collective bargaining, adopt and enforce responsible contractor policies, and utilise collaborative techniques. In 2019, the Committee on Workers’ Capital (CWC), an international network of unions, initiated an Asset Manager Accountability Initiative to support asset owners wishing to increase asset managers’ attention to workers’ rights considerations. CWC plans to issue reports on the progress of the current status of the world’s largest asset managers on these issues. In October 2020, it published a report on BlackRock. Among its recommendations for BlackRock’s private equity investment program were that it improve its project-specific agreements and enforcement in its Responsible Contracting Policy programs for real estate and infrastructure, join the Cleaning Accountability Framework in Australia, and enter into dialogue with global service unions on working conditions and workers’ rights in the private nursing industry.

These and other opportunities are detailed in the Confronting Income Inequality toolkit, which can help you apply these and similar approaches throughout your portfolio. Because, as the COVID-19 pandemic laid bare, we are operating within weak and vulnerable social and economic systems, highlighting the need for investors to act on income inequality and other systemic issues. We hope this toolkit can help investors do so.

William Burckart leads TIIP (The Investment Integration Project) and is co-author of the book 21st Century Investing: Redirecting Financial Strategies to Drive Systems Change

Michael Musuraca is senior advisor at TIIP

 

The SEK10 billion Church of Sweden fund invests all its assets through a sustainability lens. It’s had stellar performance driven largely by a chunk of the fund invested in the Generation Investment Management global equity fund, an investment that was diluted last year to manage concentration risk. Amanda White spoke to CIO, Anders Thorendal.

Until the year 2000, the government of Sweden had been a 500-year owner operator of the Church of Sweden assets. At that point the now $1 billion in church funds was transferred to a new organisation to be managed independently in what is a rainy day fund. It has no inflows and no real outflows, although about 1-2 per cent is set aside for annual operational expenditure. But for the most part it has a very long-term focus and so can manage assets accordingly.

Anders Thorendal the CIO of the fund says it has a pretty traditional asset allocation including Swedish and global equities, fixed income and credit, real estate and alternative investments. But one defining characteristic is that all of the assets are managed through a sustainability lens, and 20 per cent of the entire fund is invested in global equities managed by Generation Investment Management, a manager it has had a relationship with for nearly 14 years.

“They are a big inspiration for our investment capabilities and their global equity fund is one of the top global equity funds in the world returning 4 to 5 per cent above the MSCI world annually after fees,” Thorendal says.

In 2020 the Generation IM Global Equity Fund returned 5.9 per cent against a benchmark of 1.9 per cent, measured in SEK.

“When I started with the Church I had a treasury and risk background, not an investment background. It was an honour to meet with Al Gore and David Blood they have the strong belief you can do investing differently with a concentrated portfolio really focused on sustainable companies and good management and that sustainable products would make a difference,” he says. “They identified winners in the transition to a lower carbon society and have been good at identifying those companies.”

While sustainable investing is in vogue today, back in 2008 excluding fossil fuels was more difficult to do both philosophically and from an implementation perspective, but this is what the church fund did, divesting its holdings from oil and gas in 2008-09.

“Excluding coal and oil is not an issue today to reach financial goals but 12 years ago when we started it was,” Thorendal says.

While the relationship with Generation has been a driver of investment philosophy, and returns, it also presented a risk for the fund to manage, and in the past year Church of Sweden has slightly decreased its reliance on Generation. In a bid to diversify some of the concentration risk Ownership Capital and Mirova have both been allocated about 2-3 per cent of the fund.

“We want to work with managers that have sustainability in their DNA. We get approached by managers constantly that think today sustainability is becoming more vanilla, more the flavour of today, managers who see sustainability as another theme, or an overlay. We were even approached by a manager who said give us the exclusion list and we’ll take it from there. This is not what we want, we need them on the ground, we need them to focus on companies you want to have in the portfolio not just exclusion, that is part of the manager DNA, and more what we want,” Thorendal says. “Generation doesn’t have two separate teams they all can see the companies from both a sustainability and finance point of view. The future will be that sustainability will be more part of the traditional way to assess companies.”

Equities make up the majority of the assets at Church of Sweden with 34 per cent in global, 15 per cent in Swedish and 9 per cent in emerging market equities.

The fund has a further 25 per cent in fixed income, 10 per cent in real estate and 6 per cent in alternatives. It is in the alternatives bucket that it really tries to have a direct impact.

“Alternatives are a way to reduce the risk for the overall portfolio with investment not correlated with equity, and from an impact perspective if we want to really make a difference on the ground in developing countries for example in direct investments and micro finance then the alternatives space is a good place,” says Thorendal.

One of those investments has been micro finance, with the Swedish bank SEB issuing to smaller banks in Asia and South America which then lend to small companies and individuals.

“They lend to individuals, women in particular, and this is a good way to build up society,” he says. “We have seen very few defaults and we have had steady returns of 7-8 per cent a year.”

Last year the fund also made a couple of follow up investments in a Swedish venture capital company, that provides micro finance aid.

In the 10 years to 2020 the fund returned 8 per cent per annum, which was double its real rate of return target. And as with many  investors as Thorendal looks to achieve his return targets he has his eye on inflation, which in Sweden is currently 1-2 per cent.

“We are seeing inflation increase right now and the $10,000 question is will that continue or go back to the new normal. With the lower expectations for interest-related investments it’s a challenge if you want to get 3 per cent real return, it could put you too far out on the risk side,” Thorendal says. “Is it still feasible to have 3 per cent above CPI as a return target, our board believes so, but we are saying if you want return you have to take some risk which is another reason we are going into alternatives.”

Key Takeaways

  • The global pandemic has accelerated and elevated social concerns within the sustainable investment debate.
  • The growing activism of clients is being turned on asset managers, pushing them to hold themselves to the same standards that they demand of others.
  • A lack of tangible data has historically made it harder to directly link social impacts to financial performance.
  • Looking five years ahead, we believe the growing awareness of the systemic nature of social issues should ensure that they get the prominence that climate change receives today.

Five years ago, climate change was a topic that most investors acknowledged as a systemic risk, yet, when discussed in terms of portfolio management, it was largely viewed as an externality that had failed to manifest itself in financial returns. How times have changed.

Now, nine out of ten of the world’s largest economies have committed to achieving net-zero carbon emissions, one third of the world’s asset managers have joined the Net Zero Asset Management initiative, and, more importantly, the economics of the fossil-fuel industry have been transformed by the internalization of climate change into companies’ business models. What was previously a movement led by activists has now become an economic imperative that promises to reshape the world.

Social Concerns to the Fore

In the (we hope) soon-to-be post-Covid world, social concerns have been elevated in the sustainable investment debate. While investors are increasingly vocal about issues such as human capital management, there is frustration that a lack of tangible data, and limited evidence that social considerations are linked to financial outcomes, are hindering progress towards achieving a more comprehensive inclusion of social factors in portfolio decision-making. Despite these challenges, however, we believe that investors may well be at the same tipping point in the social debate that climate was at five years ago. The question is, therefore, are we about to see the transformation of the social dimension of ESG into a transformative economic force too?

Businesses as Social Enterprises

The Covid-19 crisis reminds us daily that all businesses are de factosocial enterprises. Institutional investor surveys, such as the Edelman Corporate Trust Barometer 2020 report,[1] highlight the increased prominence of social issues. These findings are echoed in a recent Pensions Policy Institute report in which 75% of pension schemes surveyed expected members to become more concerned about social considerations in investment decisions. [2]

The rising awareness of social matters for individual savers reflects their immediacy through their own experiences or in their own communities. The increased focus on stewardship by pension funds and wealth managers is a mechanism for elevating these concerns, and one that provides a voice to a wider range of stakeholders and makes all investors potential activists now.

Hard to Measure

The broad scope and qualitative nature of social factors can make it hard to measure impact and understand how to implement the management of these risks effectively. The growing awareness of the topic is also increasing the range of factors being considered, which adds to the challenge. However, the complexities of a topic matter little if there is a growing clamor for tackling stubborn systemic challenges.

Institutional investors are increasingly using their voice for social matters too. The absence of data is being filled by engagement activities that call for greater disclosure and clear goals for achieving inclusive and diverse workforces. Strong governance is needed to translate easy corporate rhetoric into tangible action through clearly defined goals. Here, shareholders are calling for stronger evidence of intent, starting at the board and executive level, and exercising their voting power to underscore the imperative for change.

Future of Human Capital

The investment industry is also being forced to look at its own performance on social matters, which is often sadly lacking when it comes to inclusion and diversity. The growing activism of clients is being turned on asset managers, pushing them to hold themselves to the same standards that they demand of others. While more is needed, programs such as the Thirty Percent Coalition, #100BlackInterns and Women Returners are signs of progress.

When backed by greater efforts on improving cognitive diversity, the industry can be helped to break out of its own echo chamber. The power of social movements is illustrated by the success of #100BlackInterns, which has rapidly spread to over 20 industries beyond financial services and morphed into #10000BlackInterns.

Mental Wellbeing

The rapid recovery from the Covid-induced recession is revealing skill shortages and changing how companies organize human capital management. In many industries, the pattern of work may never be the same again. Covid has demonstrated that flexibility can bring productivity benefits, as well as giving access to a more diverse talent pool. The arrival of children in many a video conference call has humanized the work experience for many and reminded us that there is a life beyond the office. The pandemic has also raised awareness of mental illness as the downside of those productivity gains. There is now greater appreciation that mental wellbeing needs to be managed in the same way as physical wellbeing.

Focus on Supply Chains

It is not solely in direct activities that social matters are coming to fore. Issues in supply chains, such as forced labor, have come increasingly to prominence, often amplified by political and legal pressures. Scrutiny of supply chains is notoriously hard, but the positive side of social media and the internet is that issues can be rapidly revealed and can cause damage to reputations and sales. While traditional reported social data remains elusive, other forms of information can be even more powerful.

Collaborative action is an important element of achieving greater corporate accountability. Not-for-profit organizations, such as the Workforce Disclosure Initiative,[3] have played a central role in driving improved transparency in all forms of human capital management to fill the data gap.

Five Years Ahead

Looking five years ahead, we believe the growing awareness of the systemic nature of social issues should ensure that they get the prominence that climate change receives today. It is an opportunity for business to show leadership and innovation – especially in a world where so much of government policy has been outsourced to the private sector.

In our view, the activism of shareholders needs to be built upon and turned into engagement, with a forward-looking perspective on a multi-stakeholder world. The data will follow and should be no excuse for inaction. Behavior is visible and shapes outcomes more than reporting will ever do. The prescient corporation will see that effective stakeholder management is about ensuring future relevance.

Sources

[1] https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2020-11/Edelman%202020%20Institutional%20Investor%20Trust_FINAL.pdf

[2] https://www.pensionspolicyinstitute.org.uk/sponsor-research/research-reports/2021/2021-04-22-engaging-with-esg-environmental-social-and-governance-factors/

[3] https://shareaction.org/workforce-disclosure-initiative/

Important information and disclosures

Any reference to a specific security, country or sector should not be construed as a recommendation to buy or sell this security, country or sector. Please note that strategy holdings and positioning are subject to change without notice.

Important Information

This is a financial promotion. Issued by Newton Investment Management Limited, The Bank of New York Mellon Centre, 160 Queen Victoria Street, London, EC4V 4LA. Newton Investment Management Limited is authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, 12 Endeavour Square, London, E20 1JN and is a subsidiary of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation. ‘Newton’ and/or ‘Newton Investment Management’ brand refers to Newton Investment Management Limited. Newton is registered in England No. 01371973. VAT registration number GB: 577 7181 95. Newton is registered with the SEC as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. Newton’s investment business is described in Form ADV, Part 1 and 2, which can be obtained from the SEC.gov website or obtained upon request. Material in this publication is for general information only. The opinions expressed in this document are those of Newton and should not be construed as investment advice or recommendations for any purchase or sale of any specific security or commodity. Certain information contained herein is based on outside sources believed to be reliable, but its accuracy is not guaranteed. You should consult your advisor to determine whether any particular investment strategy is appropriate. This material is for institutional investors only.

Personnel of certain of our BNY Mellon affiliates may act as: (i) registered representatives of BNY Mellon Securities Corporation (in its capacity as a registered broker-dealer) to offer securities, (ii) officers of the Bank of New York Mellon (a New York chartered bank) to offer bank-maintained collective investment funds, and (iii) Associated Persons of BNY Mellon Securities Corporation (in its capacity as a registered investment adviser) to offer separately managed accounts managed by BNY Mellon Investment Management firms, including Newton and (iv) representatives of Newton Americas, a Division of BNY Mellon Securities Corporation, U.S. Distributor of Newton Investment Management Limited.

Unless you are notified to the contrary, the products and services mentioned are not insured by the FDIC (or by any governmental entity) and are not guaranteed by or obligations of The Bank of New York or any of its affiliates. The Bank of New York assumes no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the above data and disclaims all expressed or implied warranties in connection therewith. © 2020 The Bank of New York Company, Inc. All rights reserved.

In Canada, Newton Investment Management Limited is availing itself of the International Adviser Exemption (IAE) in the following Provinces: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec and the foreign commodity trading advisor exemption in Ontario. The IAE is in compliance with National Instrument 31-103, Registration Requirements, Exemptions and Ongoing Registrant Obligations.

The C$23 billion Canadian fund OPTrust is using AI to reduce risk in a strategy it hopes to roll out to the wider portfolio. Wei Xie explains the benefits and challenges of machine learning including AI’s ability to identify complex dimensional relationships.

The C$23 billion Canadian fund OPTrust is embracing the power of AI to improve investment outcomes via two new strategies based around re-enforcement learning and uncertainty modelling.

The latter approach, in place since late 2020, is currently used to pare risk in a risk parity strategy and is already giving actionable signals on how to adjust risk in the portfolio. Going forward, Wei Xie, co-head of the multi-strategy investing team at the fund told FIS Digital 2021 delegates he hoped to deploy the strategy at a total fund level and combine it with the equity beta portfolio to create a risk reduced equity allocation.

Uncertainty modelling

OPTrust began exploring how to integrate AI with the support of external quant managers. Next, the fund began to build its own internal, proprietary capabilities with just Xie and an associate overseeing the project. At a high level, AI is used to better understand and inform risk in a scalable approach, he explained.

“As long as the algorithms are robust, we can adjust the approach and use it for total fund management,” he said.

Xie said that whilst very promising, machine learning is also complex. Particularly from a personnel perspective, creating challenges for investors around hiring people with the right skills. It also involves investment in a data supply chain. Indeed, even with a reasonably large investment team, OPTrust found it difficult to use AI to tap a competitive advantage because of limited resources around data and personnel. Instead, the pension fund decided to focus on risk management solutions.

“Risk management is scalable across different types of strategy and doesn’t need exotic data as it mainly involves working with price data,” he said.

Expanding on how the process works, he described the typical quant model as injecting ingredients or inputs. OPTrust sought to design a process that used AI to discover when assumptions might be ineffective due to the function of changes in the market.

The domain set out to identify times when the prevailing logic falls apart, alerting Xie to changes in external markets and the ensuing impact on risk.

“If something has changed the risk may have increased because what we are doing becomes less effective,” he explained. “The process is telling us that our strategy is less accurate, and that we should take risk out.”

Re-enforcement learning

Re-enforcement learning gives greater insight into the factors driving price action. AI allows investors to detect the non-linear impacts on prices that humans struggle to track, he said.

“Although humans are good at understanding two-dimensional linear relationships, when it becomes more abstract and relationships get to three, four or five dimensional, humans stop having any ability to interpret – accept through maths. In contrast, machine learning and AI can identify these complex relationships,” he said.

Addressing the challenge of how humans get comfortable with AI outcomes that are difficult to intuitively understand, he said the process involves testing the models and a simple checklist.

“You can do a sanity check around what is happening in your model,” he concluded.

In an interview during FIS Digital 2021 Joe Lonsdale, founder and general partner, 8VC talks about his unique approach to venture investment with Todd Ruppert, chair, INSEAD endowment.

Venture capital investment involves working with the most talented individuals to build companies, which in turn hold the seeds of future companies, said veteran venture investor Joe Lonsdale. Success depends on moving with top talent and being across key trends and their wider ripple impact – like, for example, how smart phones triggered ride sharing.

Successful investment involves finding out what is newly possible that wasn’t five years ago, said Lonsdale.

“It is all about the talent you are with and the big, conceptual gaps in the world. What is it possible to do now that wasn’t possible five years ago?”

At 8VC investment in the biotech sector involves getting to know the technology and how it is driving innovation around key themes like cheap sequencing, gene editing, cell manipulation and therapy.

“We are doing a lot here,” he said, adding that biotech investment has the potential to be both profitable and good for the world. Most notably on the eve of the pandemic, when supply chain issues in the US pharmaceutical sector threatened the US response.

Seeing the challenge, Lonsdale was involved in establishing a first-of-its-kind manufacturing and technology company dedicated to broadening access to medicines and protecting the supply chain against disruption. Set up after two rounds of funding raised $800 million, Resilience Bio is both a good investment and good for the world.

Lonsdale is also at the forefront of investing in financial services, increasingly transformed by data, the cloud and APIs.

“There is a new demand as to how this stuff should work,” he said. One-8VC backed firm operating in this cutting-edge space is Addepar. The leading private wealth management technology company is an increasingly important investment platform in the family office space.

Indeed, it is this kind of investment services technology he wants to harness to allow more people to invest in alternatives where he says top talent and expertise overwhelming flows.

“The smartest people are all going to build private companies. This is where your money should go.”

He predicts capital will increasingly flow into private alternative investment yet notes how lots of people are confused about how to access the space.

“My vision is help more people access the alternative world, providing the content and technology,” he said.

In a final note, Lonsdale urged institutional investors to come together to create a prize to help finance and develop cutting edge carbon capture technology.

“It could be a key to incentivising the market and harnessing the best minds to solve one of the world’s biggest problems,” he said.

His suggestion sees pension funds back a prize to help fund carbon capture solutions, awarded to the company that develops the best technology. The investors would retain intellectual property rights and if the winning company captures carbon at a low enough cost with sufficient scalability, pension funds would then work to lobby governments to adopt the technology.