Infrastructure Debt and ESG: the importance of strategic prioritisation



Infrastructure debt stands out due to its usually low risk profile and positive ESG impact. But for institutional investors, it can be worthwhile to invest in infrastructure projects with potentially higher ESG risks.


Infrastructure debt investment generally presents a low risk profile in terms of ESG (environmental, social and corporate governance) factors and often exhibits positive-ESG-impact features. The highly structured characteristics of Infrastructure debt – covenants conferring some degree of control of their investments by debt investors post-investment – makes strategic segmentation of sub-sectors by ESG risk meaningful, and provides mechanisms for positive engagement if investors choose to invest in infrastructure with higher ESG risk potential.

As “sustainability” becomes a core requirement for investors there is a danger that a ‘box-checking’ culture develops. A clear strategy focuses finite ESG engagement capacity in those areas where ESG risk is greatest, but also where the potential positive impact of marginal sustainable investment is highest.


Without an efficient strategic risk assessment framework, there is production of large volumes of low-value data and inconsequential commentary about inherently low-ESG-risk investments. This adds unnecessary costs to investment management – ultimately borne by investors.

At worst, a failure to focus ESG efforts in areas where ESG returns are greatest distracts managers and investors from positive engagement where such engagement is needed. In extremis it may lead to ‘ESG protectionism’ – the theory being that emerging markets or challenging sectors such as energy generation can be avoided entirely. Not only does such an approach increase investment risk for investors because of reduced diversification, it also fails to recognise that whatever the risks of investment in more ESG-challenging sectors, the “do-nothing” option is often the worst option from an ESG perspective.

Questions of environmental impact need to be looked at in context and not in absolute terms. While air pollution in densely populated western cities where there is a high penetration of petrol and diesel-burning vehicles is of concern, the areas of the world where life expectancy is most adversely impacted by air pollution remain emerging markets, where burning of fossil fuels or animal waste within homes to generate heat is a far greater risk to health. In such circumstances migration to any modern energy source would be likely to have a positive impact, whether it is renewable energy or traditional energy generation.


ESG strengths are generally reflected in higher credit ratings and lower cost of debt. These parameters inform infrastructure project debt, because infrastructure projects will benefit in terms of their own rating and pricing from having well-rated counterparties.

Infrastructure debt benefits from additional features not seen in general fixed income, which may address ESG:

1/ The terms of infrastructure debt normally prescribe the purpose for which funding is to be used e.g. to build a new road or a wind-farm.

2/ Infrastructure issuers are typically subject to additional tiers of governance not seen in most general fixed income issuer businesses, either via law or contract.

3/ The covenants of infrastructure debt typically go beyond financial matters (e.g. leverage restrictions) into how the issuer performs its business.


An example of a low ESG risk project financing would be the construction of a university accommodation project in partnership with a University in a mature democracy such as the UK.

The EU provides a mature legal and regulatory system, including strict environmental laws, employment rights for workers, anti-discrimination laws, strict anti-money laundering regulations, robust Health & Safety rules – particularly relevant to the construction phase, but applicable throughout the life of the project.

Beyond ESG risk defensive features, university growth represents a positive impact investment – increasing life chances of students, and enabling research and economic development.

A medium-risk project would be a new road in a middle income country. A road has the potential to impact the local environment, but it may also relieve worse pollution and congestion elsewhere e.g. a by-pass of a city should improve quality of life within the city.

For a medium-risk project a short-form summary of ESG risks and mitigants will be considered as part of the general risks and mitigants review prior to investment.

An example of a higher-risk project could include thermal electricity generation in an emerging market country. To date all of our emerging market infrastructure investment has been in partnership with IFIs with a track record of managing such risks. For example, AllianzGI established one of the first IFC (International Finance Corporation) partnership funds, through which AllianzGI investors invest in IFCoriginated and managed loans.

When co-investing with IFIs, our initial due diligence establishes the adequacy of their ESG policies and procedures, rather than repeating the exercise for every single investment. For unforeseen situations we retain participation-veto rights.

At AllianzGI we first assess the ESG risk profile of a potential issuer based on fundamental context, and rate them low, medium or high.



For low-ESG-risk project debt issuance, compliance with general law, issuerspecific regulations and counterparty contract terms represents an indirect comprehensive suite of ESG assurance. This can be very cost-effectively policed by the inclusion of market standard finance contract covenants and typical sanctions for any breach of such covenants – equity distribution block for minor breaches until remedied, enforcement and acceleration for major breach. A specific ESG review is typically only required for higher-risk investments.

When projects are in mature democracies, themselves subject to international agreements on environmental goals, it is questionable that a debt financier “knows best” on questions of public policy, or even how best to achieve a given ESG goal. However, such questions of public policy in a mature democracy with international obligations should, in our view, be left to the elected governments of mature countries, and investors should focus on the creditworthiness of the asset being financed within the regulatory or contractual framework, established by the government in furtherance of the policy.


Investors who take ESG seriously have the opportunity to diversify their fixed income portfolios by allocating assets to infrastructure debt, safe in the knowledge that the fundamentals of the sector permit responsible investment. Moreover, the covenant structures of the underlying transactions allow active managers to behave as responsible stewards by enforcing compliance with best practice as required under the laws and regulations of advanced democracies, whose electorate are concerned about the environment and sustainability1.

Adrian Jones Adrian Jones,
Director, Infrastructure Debt,
Allianz Global Investors


1) A performance of the strategy is not guaranteed and losses remain possible.

Investing involves risk. The statements contained herein may include statements of future expectations and other forward-looking statements that are based on management's current views and assumptions and involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results, performance or events to differ materially from those expressed or implied in such statements. We assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statement. The value of an investment and the income from it may fall as well as rise and investors may not get back the full amount invested. There is no guarantee that the strategy will succeed and losses cannot be ruled out. Investors may not get back the full amount invested.

The volatility of fund unit prices may be increased or even strongly increased. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. If the currency in which the past performance is displayed differs from the currency of the country in which the investor resides, then the investor should be aware that due to the exchange rate fluctuations the performance shown may be higher or lower if converted into the investor’s local currency.

This is for information only and not to be construed as a solicitation or an invitation to make an offer, to conclude a contract, or to buy or sell any securities. The products or securities described herein may not be available for sale in all jurisdictions or to certain categories of investors. This is for distribution only as permitted by applicable law and in particular not available to residents and/or nationals of the USA. The investment opportunities described herein do not take into account the specific investment objectives, financial situation, knowledge, experience or particular needs of any particular person and are not guaranteed. The views and opinions expressed herein, which are subject to change without notice, are those of the issuer and/or its affiliated companies at the time of publication. The data used is derived from various sources, and assumed to be correct and reliable, but it has not been independently verified; its accuracy or completeness is not guaranteed and no liability is assumed for any direct or consequential losses arising from its use, unless caused by gross negligence or willful misconduct. The conditions of any underlying offer or contract that may have been, or will be, made or concluded, shall prevail.

Contact the issuer electronically or via mail at the address indicated below for a free copy of the sales prospectus, the incorporation documents, the latest annual and semi-annual financial reports and the key investor information document in English. Please read these documents – which are solely binding – carefully before investing.

This is a marketing communication issued by Allianz Global Investors GmbH,, an investment company with limited liability, incorporated in Germany, with its registered office at Bockenheimer Landstrasse 42–44, 60323 Frankfurt/M, registered with the local court Frankfurt/M under HRB 9340, authorized by Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht ( This report does not satisfy all legal requirements on the guarantee of impartiality in investment recommendations and investment strategy recommendations and is not subject to any trade restrictions prior to the publication of such recommendations. The duplication, publication, or transmission of the contents, irrespective of the form, is not permitted.

The Difference between Productivity and Innovation – and the Implications for Growth and Equity Markets



Official productivity measurements have been falling for decades – a puzzling development given the rapid pace of high-tech innovations. But rather than functioning as productivity-enhancers, many of these innovations disrupt economies and markets. This could have major implications for jobs and productivity, and trigger unforeseen amounts of social and political change.