DJSI 2017 Results WebcastSeptember 2017

Agenda

General Review & Developments 2017 Manjit Jus, Head of Sustainability Application & Operations

Methodology Review & CSA Findings Jacob Messina, Head of Sustainability Investing Research

Q&A

2

3

2017 Methodology

Review DJSI 2017 Review

RobecoSAM CSA: Participation Trend

4

Increasing participation of companies in DJSI over the years

Source: RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 1999-2017

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Companies Participated

Chart1

280

416

421

465

516

528

550

533

533

569

656

700

729

790

818

830

864

867

942

Companies Participated

Sheet1

Environmental InnovationSelf AssessedCompanies ParticipatedCompany Participation Growth Rate (CAGR 7.69%)

1999188280280

2000154416416

2001579421421

2002635465465

2003255516516

2004450528528

2005523550550

2006667533533

2007519533533

2008553569569

2009743656656

2010693700700

2011714729729

2012761790790

20131013818818

2014983830830

2015981864864

20161119867867

2017942942

0.0659361812

To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.

Regional Breakdown of Participating Companies

5

2017 Methodology

Review

195

273

16

267

81

8723 North America Europe Developed

Europe Emerging Markets Asia Pacific Developed

Asia Emerging Markets Latin America

Africa & Middle East

Source: RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2017

Strongest Growth in Participation

6

2017 Methodology

Review

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Peru Greece Russian Federation Mexico

Perc

enta

ge g

row

th in

par

tici

pation

Participation Growth (percentage)

Source: RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2016 -2017

Strongest Growth in Participation

7

2017 Methodology

Review

124

10

160

1

18

146

22

168

7

23

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Japan Mexico United States Peru Netherlands

Part

icip

atin

g Com

pani

esParticipation Growth (absolute)

2016 2017

Source: RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2016 -2017

Major Developments in 2017

8

Methodology

Methodology review of financial materiality of Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA) criteria

Industry-based approach to reviewing sustainability topics and trends

Introduction of new criterion Policy Influence, expansion of Impact Measurement & Valuation, furtherdevelopment of Human Rights, new questions for Corporate Governance and Supply Chain Management

Other Developments

Alignment with other global sustainability reporting frameworks such as GRI and SASB

Company Information section normalizing companies data with appropriate denominators, reportingcurrency unified

9

2017 Methodology

Review General Remarks

General Remarks

10

2017 Methodology

Review

2017 Focus

Reducing the overall number of questions within the questionnaire

Removing questions or criteria no longer of material significance

Introducing new general and industry-specific criteria, to ensure that our assessment continues to raise the bar and challenge companies in their thinking about long-term risks and opportunities

Observations

Companies struggle to provide information for new or updated questions

Solutions

Provide additional clarification on new questions

Use clearer definitions

Better explain our expectations

General Remarks

11

2017 Methodology

Review

Data Quality

Consult the information texts each year, and read the question texts carefully to ensure that nothing has changed from one year to the next

Ensure that the provided data meets the definitions provided by RobecoSAM

In case something is not clear, consult the CSA Helpline for clarification

Supporting References

Gradually try to reduce overall number of references while simultaneously providing more public references

Be as specific as possible in terms of page number and sections of the documents

Only provide comments and documents that are relevant for the question

Documents should be provided in a timely manner, within the assessment timeframe and RobecoSAM should be informed in advance if any of documents will be finalized after the deadline

Non-English Documents

The official language of the CSA is English, we rely on translations to verify answers

In cases where we specifically ask for public information, we expect this to be in English, so that it is accessible by all investors globally

12

2017 Methodology

Review

New Methodology

Review & CSA Findings

Policy Influence

13

This new criterion has been added to ALL industries

Civil society, consumers, and investors are increasingly aware that:

Companies legitimately represent themselves in public discourse

However, excessively high contributions and activities that go against the common good can create risk

Companies are not transparent around the types of contributions that they make

Two questions in the criteria:

Total contributions and other spending

Five largest contributions and expenditures

Benefits:

Recognized leadership for companies with lower reputational and corruption risk through lower spending on policy influence and superior transparency for investors and the public

Policy Influence

14

2017 Methodology

Review

What we were looking for:

Disclosure on all types of contributions, except charitable contributions or donations to corporate citizenship activities

This includes:

Lobbying and interest representation

Industry, trade and other business associations

Political candidates, parties and organizations, for campaigns, ballot measures, referendums, etc.

Includes activities with a positive purpose

Observations:

In the CSA, many companies solely reported political contributions

Most companies do not disclose beyond what is legally mandated

Public disclosure extending beyond direct political contributions to trade association memberships, etc is extremely low

Impact Measurement & Valuation

15

2017 Methodology

Review

Piloted in 2016, a revised and expanded version was rolled out to all (non-utility) industries in 2017

Increasing in relevance with UNs Sustainable Development Goals

Companies & investors want to understand the externalities inherent in companies business models

3 questions:

Impact Valuation

Monetary, Quantitative/Qualitative, Pilot

Valuation Disclosure

Business Programs for Social Needs

Applicable to 25 industries

Benefits

Evaluating business activities impacts can help companies make better decisions and identify opportunities for innovation, and help investors understand such risks and opportunities

Impact Measurement & Valuation

16Source: RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2017 Data based on 896 participating companies

Observations

Very few companies have a viable valuation approach in place to measure their impact on society & the environment but companies are beginning to explore new methodologies to do so:

What we were looking for:

Companies measuring outcomes: neither outputs nor input costs

Environmental/social profit loss statements measuring outcomes

Environmental/social return on investment methodologies

Application of existing methodologies such as True Value, TIMM, etc.

Pilot-testing of frameworks like the Natural Capital Protocol

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

Asia Pacific EmergingMarkets

Europe NorthAmerica

Global

Pilot project

Quantitative or qualitative impact valuation

Monetary impact valuation

17

2017 Methodology

Review

Methodology Changes

Criteria Revised in 2017

Corporate Governance

18

This criterion has been revised for ALL industries

New Questions

Average Tenure

Board Industry Experience

Updated Questions

Board Structure

Clarified and aligned the definition of Independence with global best practices (e.g. NYSE Independence Test), tightening independence requirements (as per information provided in the information button)

Scored companies on overall board size as well as the boards level of independence, shown to be closely linked to company performance

Diversity Policy

Updated question to focus on the most critical aspects of diversity

Regional Corporate Governance Performance

19Source: RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2017 2086 assessed companies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Africa Asia Pacific Europe Latin America North America

Corporate Governance 2016 Corporate Governance 2017 Board Structure 2016 Board Structure 2017

Supply Chain Management

20

This criterion has been revised for ALL relevant industries

Overall focus

Increased focus on risk awareness and risk management measures

New questions on Supplier Code of Conduct and Conflict Minerals (for select industries)

Added critical non-tier one suppliers to the scope of the assessment

Focus on transparency and public reporting

Supply Chain Management

21

2017 Methodology

Review

The increased challenge and detail in the new and updated questions led to an overall score decline in each question, resulting in an overall average decline of 11.2 points at the criterion level

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Awareness ESG Integration in SCMStrategy

Risk Exposure Risk Management Measures Transparency & Reporting

2016 2017

Source: RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2017 2086 assessed companies

Human Rights

22

2017 Methodology

Review

RobecoSAM Expectations

Commitments - should be specific and detailed, in line with international standards and clearly extending throughout the supply chain to suppliers, contractors, business partners, etc. Simply encouraging third-parties to act in accordance with the companys own policies is no longer enough: companies should enforce high standards in those areas where they have an impact. Policies should be prepared in accordance with:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Clear requirements for suppliers and business partners Presented in a clear and consistent matter, embedded in one formal policy and referenced in other

policies

Due diligence process needs to clearly include human rights, not just a companys overall risk framework; this due diligence process should be clearly described, not just mentioned

Assessment we expect all companies to have assessed their own operations, at a minimum, for potential human risks, regardless of their region(s) of operations

Disclosure we only accepted disclosure on specific points if minimum requirements were met in the previous questions

Human Rights - Commitment

23Source: RobecoSAM Corporate Sustainability Assessment 2017 942 participating companies

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Commitment according tointernational standards

Commitment covering ownoperations

Commitment covering suppliers Commitment covering partners Commitment outlining actionsand procedures

% answered % accepted

24

2017 Methodology

Review Upcoming Webcasts

More Information and Upcoming Webcasts

25

Annual Scoring & Methodology Review

Read up on this years major changes: http://www.robecosam.com/images/CSA_2017_Annual_Scoring_Methodology_Review.pdf

Webcasts

Policy Influence and Human Rights Thursday, October 5

Impact Measurement & Valuation and Supply Chain Management Thursday, October 26

Topic TBD* November 9

Topic TBD* November 30

*You can choose the topics to be discussed in the last two webcasts here:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/MNHHVD7

Send us your questions in advance!

assessments@robecosam.com

http://www.robecosam.com/images/CSA_2017_Annual_Scoring_Methodology_Review.pdfhttps://www.surveymonkey.com/r/MNHHVD7mailto:assessments@robecosam.com

Potential Topics for Upcoming Webcasts

26

Topics include:

Corporate Governance

Materiality

Product Stewardship

Operational Eco-Efficiency

Human Capital Development

Other Updates

27

2017 Methodology

Review

Selected percentile rankings at the total and dimension levels will be published on Bloomberg in late September

Benchmarking database is now available to companies with 2017 results through https://assessments.robecosam.com

Leading Practices Database will be available at the end of September

If they have been assessed by RobecoSAM on publicly available information, non-participating companies canalso log in and download their benchmarking scorecard

https://assessments.robecosam.com/

Questions?

28

2017 Methodology

Review

Contact us:

RobecoSAM CSA Helpline

+41 44 653 10 30

assessments@robecosam.com

Visit the CSA website:

www.robecosam.com/csa

mailto:assessments@robecosam.comhttp://www.robecosam.com/csa

Disclaimer

29

2017 Methodology

Review

No warranty This publication is derived from sources believed to be accurate and reliable, but neither its accuracy nor completeness is guaranteed. The material andinformation in this publication are provided "as is" and without warranties of any kind, either expressed or implied. RobecoSAM AG and its related, affiliated and subsidiarycompanies disclaim all warranties, expressed or implied, including, but not limited to, implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. Any opinionsand views in this publication reflect the current judgment of the authors and may change without notice. It is each reader's responsibility to evaluate the accuracy,completeness and usefulness of any opinions, advice, services or other information provided in this publication.

Limitation of liability All information contained in this publication is distributed with the understanding that the authors, publishers and distributors are not rendering legal,accounting or other professional advice or opinions on specific facts or matters and accordingly assume no liability whatsoever in connection with its use. In no event shallRobecoSAM AG and its related, affiliated and subsidiary companies be liable for any direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use of anyopinion or information expressly or implicitly contained in this publication.

Copyright Unless otherwise noted, text, images and layout of this publication are the exclusive property of RobecoSAM AG and/or its related, affiliated and subsidiarycompanies and may not be copied or distributed, in whole or in part, without the express written consent of RobecoSAM AG or its related, affiliated and subsidiary companies.

No Offer The information and opinions contained in this publication constitutes neither a solicitation, nor a recommendation, nor an offer to buy or sell investmentinstruments or other services, or to engage in any other kind of transaction. The information described in this publication is not directed to persons in any jurisdiction wherethe provision of such information would run counter to local laws and regulation.

2017 RobecoSAM AG

DJSI 2017 Results WebcastSeptember 2017Slide Number 2Slide Number 3Slide Number 4Slide Number 5Slide Number 6Slide Number 7Slide Number 8Slide Number 9Slide Number 10Slide Number 11Slide Number 12Slide Number 13Slide Number 14Slide Number 15Slide Number 16Slide Number 17Slide Number 18Slide Number 19Slide Number 20Slide Number 21Slide Number 22Slide Number 23Slide Number 24Slide Number 25Slide Number 26Slide Number 27Slide Number 28Slide Number 29