Enormously. When we started in 2008, the topic was still a niche. At that time, we quietly focused on resource efficiency, environmental protection, and alternative energies, combining all of this with classic fundamental analysis. Today, the topic is mainstream, but that doesn't automatically make it easier.

Yes, and the scepticism is having an effect on investors. Many consumers are primarily concerned with costs, and there is a trend toward cheaper, less sustainable products. At the same time, awareness of sustainability remains, and we are also seeing growing demand in the US for organic foods, for example. The topic remains highly relevant for our institutional clients, including in the US, even if it is no longer discussed as aggressively as it was a few years ago.

Of course, there was hype surrounding the Green Deal in the EU and the Inflation Reduction Act in the US. Then came headwinds: rising interest rates, geopolitical risks. But in the long term, the issue remains central. Climate protection, resource efficiency, circular economy – these are megatrends, not fads.

The data situation has improved, but the quality remains very mixed. We have been working with our own platform for ten years to check and weight external data. External providers offer breadth or depth, but not always the necessary combination. In some cases, estimates are adopted that we do not accept. That's why we have in-house research and can integrate ESG aspects into our own assessment.

For example, through longer or shorter profit decline phases. If we believe in a company – after successfully engaging with them – we apply more conservative discounts, depending on the credibility of its sustainability profile. In the case of Republic Services, this increased the fair value by 15%. For a defensive stock with stable cash flows, that is a lot.

I am sceptical. Diversity among providers helps us to incorporate different perspectives – as is the case with analyst opinions. It is important that we understand the underlying data. Uniform scores often suggest a certainty that cannot exist in complex ESG issues. Standardisation creates transparency, but diversity is important. If everyone uses the same models, we see the same mistakes. I prefer to have different perspectives.

Republic Services in the US, which I mentioned earlier, is a large waste management company. The company had a poor ESG rating, little disclosure, and hardly any CO₂ targets. After getting involved, we sought dialogue with the company, through our responsible investment team. Republic Services then elevated ESG management to the board level, introduced KPIs, and launched plastic recycling projects. Today, it is considered one of the leading providers in the industry.

Then we take action. One example is Bunge, an agribusiness in the US. The company had the potential to make its supply chain more sustainable. However, after a change in management, the focus shifted to short-term profits. Our investment case was no longer valid, so we exited.

We focus on impact, not labels. Our strategy is about solutions – technologies that reduce emissions, make processes more efficient, and conserve resources. We don't invest in a cement manufacturer just because it saves CO₂ emissions. We invest in the technology provider that makes this possible.