1. Exclusion criteria

Investments in financial instruments issued by companies operating in the controversial weapons sector are excluded. This includes the following areas:

• Manufacturers/distributors of anti-personnel mines (Ottawa Convention, 1997)
• Manufacturers/distributors of cluster munitions (Oslo Convention, 2008)
• Manufacturers/distributors of biological and chemical weapons
• Manufacturers/distributors of depleted uranium (DU) weapons

This process applies in principle to all mandates and mutual funds managed by Bantleon AG. Where the specific investment guidelines for segregated accounts or mutual funds set out different or supplementary requirements, these shall take precedence.

2. Value- or norm-based criteria

In the corporate bonds and equities category, the following criteria are taken into account:

• Preference will be given to companies that participate in the United Nations Global Compact.
• Preference will be given to companies from countries that have endorsed the OECD guiding principles for multinationals.

​​​​​​​This process applies in principle to all mandates and mutual funds managed by Bantleon AG. Where the specific investment guidelines for segregated accounts or mutual funds set out different or supplementary requirements, these shall take precedence.

3. Positive ESG considerations

Using ESG databases from leading ESG data providers, publicly available sources and internal analyses, the investment process involves the positive integration of environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) factors. Potential investments are assessed on this basis with regard to their ESG profile. The assessment is based on detailed data regarding the issuers of these investments and their behaviour or stance with regard to the various ESG dimensions.

The ESG databases used are based on a scoring system whereby each issuer is assigned a rank on a multi-tiered scale, which serves as an indicator of its ESG profile. The tiers of the scale cover the entire spectrum of possible ESG profiles: weak ESG profile, average ESG profile and above-average ESG profile.

Against this background, the ranking on the scale should also be understood as a rating that reflects an issuer’s resilience to long-term, sector-specific risks in the areas of environment, social issues and corporate governance (ESG). When assessing the ranking, account is taken not only of the issuer’s exposure to ESG risks but also of how effectively an issuer manages these risks compared with similar issuers. To ensure that sustainability risks are adequately taken into account, preference is given to investments in issuers with an average or above-average ESG profile.