Responsible Investments

As an investor, PFA wants to be responsible and contribute to the creation of the desired economic growth on a responsible foundation. For this reason, PFA determinedly aims to implement internationally recognised, social, environmental and governmental factors as an integrated part of the investment process.

Policy and guidelines for responsible investments

PFA's policy for responsible investments forms the basis of our work with integrating responsibility into the investment processes. The policy and guidelines are based on international principles and the UN’s conventions and guidelines. The policy has been adopted by PFA's Supervisory Board and is administered on a day-to-day basis by PFA’s RI Board, portfolio managers and the CR Manager.

PFA's policy for responsible investments

PFA’s Responsible Investments Board (RI Board) oversees the compliance of the policy for responsible investments and guidelines for the area. The RI Board meets on a monthly basis. Furthermore, the RI Board also makes decisions on matters on a day-to-day basis when necessary.

The RI Board consists of executive employees from the investment area and the CR Manager and reports to Group Management.

Terms of reference for PFA's Responsible Investment Board

 

Read about the scope of the policy

Investments in line with PFA’s policy
PFA’s policy for responsible investments applies to all investments decided by PFA.

If a company in which PFA invests violates international standards, PFA’s aim is to influence the company to change its practice. If this is not carried into effect within a reasonable period of time, the company may be excluded from PFA’s investment universe. Companies that produce controversial weapons such as cluster weapons, anti-personnel landmines or nuclear weapons are excluded without dialogue

When PFA collaborates with external investment funds, they all receive PFA’s exclusion list so that they can ensure that the investments are in line with PFA's policy for responsible investments. In 2014, PFA introduced index-linked funds managed by PFA to ensure that the customers do not accidentally invest in companies that produce cluster weapons, anti-personnel landmines or nuclear weapons.

Screening and evaluation of investments

Among other things, PFA’s share portfolio is evaluated and screened for compliance with international conventions that are covered by the UN Global Compact’s 10 principles on respect for human rights, labour rights, the environment and anti-corruption. If a company’s actions conflict with PFA’s standards and guidelines, dialogue is commenced and so is a real engagement procedure to bring about a change in the company’s practices.

If there is a reason to believe that an infringement of standards has occurred, an evaluation process is commenced to clarify whether a potential infringement of standards can be confirmed or not.

PFA’s RI Board reports to the Group Management. The RI Board deals with the engagement and evaluation issues, assesses to what extent there have been improvements or a backward step, and what consequences this will have for PFA’s investment process.

 

Responsible Investments - process in outline

PFA cooperates with the screening and engagement company GES, which, among other things, screens an enters into dialogue with companies concerning compliance with international conventions that are covered by the UN Global Compact’s 10 principles on respect for human rights, labour rights, the environment and anti-corruption.

An important element in the screening is the dialogue with the company to establish whether the company has violated international standards or not. If non-compliance is confirmed, a so-called engagement dialogue commences during which specific targets are laid down with regards to which changes the company should make in order to change its practices. The engagement dialogue is based on criteria which, among other things, focus on how the company can change its systems and behaviour in order to reduce the probability of non-compliance in future. The process with a company cannot be completed until it has been established that practice has been changed and this has been verified by a third party.

PFA regularly receives screening results in the form of a focus list and an evaluation list. PFA assesses the progress in each case and also engages in dialogue with a number of the companies. It is PFA’s Responsible Investment Board that decides whether PFA continues to trust that a company on the focus list is developing positively or whether PFA wants to divest the company.

Process for responsible investments in outline
Active ownership

PFA aims to be an active owner who influences companies to move in the direction of responsible value creation and in that way ensure the highest possible return on investment in the long term. This means that PFA is an investor who monitors and is in continuous contact with a wide range of companies in which PFA invests. On behalf of PFA, the screening and engagement company GES enters into a more formalised engagement dialogue with those companies that violate PFA’s guidelines. PFA also engages in dialogue with a number of the companies.

Engagement is the first solution when a company violates PFA’s guidelines and ethical standards. PFA uses its right to vote at the annual general meeting of listed companies in Denmark and in companies on foreign markets when it is relevant to do so.

 

Read more about active ownership

It is PFA’s aim to be an active owner and responsible investor. This means that we are regularly in contact with the management of a number of companies in which we are investing, in order to ensure a long-term return that is as high as possible. In the dialogue with the management, PFA focuses on a number of elements, for instance:

- An appropriate division of labour between the board of directors and the executive board, where the board of directors participates actively in the preparation of the company’s strategy plan, and efforts are made to ensure shareholder value.
- A high level of information in financial statements, equality of investors in relation to information from the executive board and board of directors, as well as a good appreciation of the demands and expectations of the shareholders.
- An open ownership structure and equal treatment of minority shareholders.

PFA’s policy on responsible investment
PFA attaches importance to the companies that are being invested in, acting responsibly and complying with international, recognised standards and guidelines. Through an external supplier, PFA screens the companies that it invests in, and, based on the results, a dialogue is commenced with the companies that violate PFA’s standards. This happens with the cooperation of the screening and engagement company, GES.

PFA’s work with active ownership is most often carried out in a confidential dialogue and process with the company in question. In our experience, this ensures the best results in getting companies to change their practices in specific areas. When relevant, PFA cooperates with GES or other investors. This will typically be in connection with investment in international companies, where the effect of more investors banding together to influence a company is bigger.

Progress of dialogue with selected companies
In 2015, PFA has made it an objective to communicate about the progress of the work with active ownership without compromising the confidentiality that is needed in the dialogue with the companies. Therefore, the site is updated regularly.

The process of dialogue with companies
PFA does not wish to contribute to any illegal or convention-violating activities. As a responsible investor, PFA prioritises to have a dialogue with the companies in order to work on making them change their behaviour. During the course of dialogue with the companies, it is PFA’s Responsible Investment Board that continuously assesses whether there is confidence in the company, or whether the company should be divested and excluded.

Syngenta
In December 2014, PFA was presented with a report and a video showing highly criticisable conditions in the company’s supplier chain. PFA had an analysis prepared by GES about the company’s practices, and PFA initiated a dialogue with the company. PFA has awaited Fair Labor Association’s (FLA) report on Syngenta’s supplier chain (Procurement price and credit practices in Syngenta hybrid seeds supply chain, India), which was published in July 2015. In 2016, PFA has followed up on the company in connection with its work in this area. PFA has learned that according to recommendations from a multi stakeholder consultation etc. Syngenta has initiated two pilot projects in India with the purpose of ensuring a minimum wage to the employees in the company’s supply chain. The projects will run until autumn 2017, and PFA will await the results of the pilot Projects.

Volkswagen
PFA is following the development in the Company, including the initiatives that the company launches in order to change its practices and thus ensure that Volkswagen’s products live up to the existing international as well as local environmental standards. PFA is part of a group action against the company, which has resulted in the company declining to hold investor-related meetings with PFA. PFA works at establishing a direct dialogue with Volkswagen. Together with 10 other investors, PFA has contacted the company to urge dialogue. The purpose is to address the lack of transparency. If this is unsuccessful, PFA’s RI Board will reconsider the situation.

Ryanair
On behalf of PFA and other investors, the screening and engagement company, GES, has been in dialogue with Ryanair in order to clarify questions about the company’s practices towards its employees in relation to the rights that are a part of the ILO conventions. In this connection, no clear breaches of international conventions on labour market conditions have been established.

PFA has followed Ryanair's business practices with worry, including the working conditions of its employees and, most recently, the case at the Danish Labour Court. The case illustrates the company’s lack of interest in adapting to local conditions and the related risk. On this basis, PFA’s RI Board has decided that PFA does not wish to invest in the company.

Cement Roadstone Holding (CRH)
Since 2014, PFA has been in dialogue with the company to clarify a number of circumstances in relation to the company’s affiliation with an Israeli company and thus its potential involvement in convention-violating activities on the occupied West Bank. In January 2016, the company made public and confirmed that it has sold off its share of the Israeli company. With that, the affiliation has ended and PFA’s RI Board has decided to halt the dialogue.

Rio Tinto
PFA has entered into dialogue with the company to clarify how their mining activities in Indonesia affect the environment. In connection with the dialogue, the company described how they, through committees and daily contact with their partners, seek to ensure that the effect on the local environment is minimised. In near future, PFA will continue the dialogue with the company to follow up on the planned shift from open pit mining to underground mining activities.

Freeport McMoRan
PFA has entered into dialogue with the company to clarify how their mining activities in Indonesia affect the environment. The company has confirmed that they actively work on measuring the effect on the local environmental conditions, and that they have established areas for nature rehabilitation. The company has furthermore described how it cooperates with the local population in order to avoid that the mining activities negatively affect their human rights. In the near future, PFA will continue the dialogue with the company in order to follow up on the planned shift from open pit mining to underground mining activities.

Maersk
PFA has entered into dialogue with Maersk regarding the company’s policy on shipbreaking and their work with the shipyard Shree Ram in India. The dialogue will continue in the future, and PFA will continue to ask Maersk about its accession to the coming list of EU-approved shipyards when this is published in 2017.

Nestlé
PFA has entered into dialogue with the company to discuss its sustainability programme, including handling of child labour in their supply chain. PFA has visited Nestlé in Côte d’Ivoire, where the company, among other things, has introduced the ’Child Labour Monitoring and Remediation System’ (CLMRS) with the purpose of identifying child labour and find solutions to the problem. PFA will be in a continuous dialogue with Nestlé to follow up on the company’s progress and discuss the extent of the sustainability programmes.
 
GlencoreXstrata
PFA has entered into dialogue with the company regarding the environmental effects from the mine in Mount Isa, Australia. PFA and the company have discussed its progress in reducing air pollution and the company’s work on reducing the effects on water quality in the area around the mine. At the same time, PFA will continue the dialogue with the company regarding its due diligence on human rights in Western Sahara, which is expected to be ready in 2017. 

Chevron
PFA has followed up on the company’s latest general meeting, where PFA supported a resolution about the importance that the company reports its future efforts in relation to strategic climate change adaption activities until 2035.

ExxonMobil

PFA has followed up on the company’s latest general meeting, where PFA supported a resolution about the importance that the company reports its future efforts in relation to strategic climate change adaption activities until 2040.

Expedia
PFA contacted the company to have its opinion on the accusations of being linked to human rights violations described in the Danwatch report ‘Business on forbidden land’ from 2017. We have not yet succeeded in engaging in dialogue with the company. PFA continues to pursue a dialogue with the company.

Samsung Electronics
PFA’s external manager, who has invested in the company, has been in contact with the company’s executive management in order to address the lack of transparency and allegations of corruption. Samsung Electronics has initiated a corporate governance review, and PFA will monitor the case in cooperation with the external manager.

Sun Hung Kai Properties
PFA’s external manager, who has invested in the company, has contacted the company in order to address any potential human rights violations as a result of its security contracts on Nauru and Papua New Guinea. The company has informed that it is not considering a renewal of contracts. Together with the external manager, PFA will monitor the case and the development.

Nordea Bank
PFA has been in dialogue with the company regarding the money laundering case. Nordea Bank has initiated an internal review of the transactions that are up to 5 years old. In the meantime, new precautionary measures have been introduced to ensure that similar events will not recur. According to PFA's assessment, the company has taken the necessary steps to comply with the money laundering regulations in the future.

Danske Bank
PFA has entered into dialogue with Danske Bank regarding illegal transactions conducted in the bank’s Eastern European branches during the period from 2007-2014. It is highly reprehensible that the control of the bank's internal processes has not been adequate. PFA has inquired into Danske Bank’s efforts to review previous risky transactions made prior to the implementation of their new processes and procedures. In our dialogue with Danske Bank, we have focused on how these learnings will be used in future to strengthen internal controls. In addition, we have focused on how to identify new risky transactions as well as the due diligence process that is activated once suspicious incidents are detected. PFA assesses that Danske Bank is giving its internal processes much priority, and that the bank's current processes are now at an adequate level, which we expect to continue to be the case in future.

Wal-Mart
In cooperation with 11 other investors, PFA contacted the company to engage in dialogue on labour rights and sustainability. In spite of the initiated dialogue, Wal-Mart will remain on PFA’s exclusion list.

Enbridge Inc.
Together with a number of other investors, PFA entered into dialogue with Enbridge about how it can use its leverage in connection with its investment in the   Dakota Access Pipeline Project (DAPL). The dialogue with Enbridge has focused on how the company will improve its relevant policies and processes – with particular focus on the UN’s Special Rapporteur's assessment of DAPL's negative impact on the rights of indigenous people. Enbridge has expressed willingness to   use its influence and update its policies to ensure compliance with international standards. During 2017, PFA will continue its dialogue with Enbridge as the primary stakeholder in relation to DAPL.

Adani
PFA's external manager has been in dialogue with the management of Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone (Adani) in order to address potential environmental damage in Australia as well as the company’s overall approach to sustainability. Adani has informed PFA that it has not made use of its permission from the Australian authorities to dump sediment near the Great Barrier Reef. Instead, Adani has decided to dispose of the sediment in the countryside. Historically, Adani has generated a large part of their turnover from coal. The company has now set a target to reduce the turnover from coal from 50 % to 20 %. PFA’s external manager will continue its dialogue with the company.

Energy Transfer Equity and its subsidiary Energy Transfer Partners
PFA has tried to establish dialogue with Energy Transfer Equity, which is the parent company of Energy Transfer Partners, which is responsible for constructing and running the Dakota Access Pipeline. The intention was to put focus on Dakota Access Pipeline’s negative impact on the rights of indigenous people in the area where the pipeline is constructed. However, neither PFA nor PFA’s screening and engagement company has been able to initiate dialogue with Energy Transfer Equity.

PFA supports the UN Special Rapporteurs' assessment of the case concerning Dakota Access Pipeline, and the activities conflict with PFA's policy for responsible investments. As the company does not wish to enter into dialogue, PFA has sold off its investment and excluded Energy Transfer Equity and its subsidiary Energy Transfer Partners.

JBS SA
PFA has joined 30 international investors to call on the Brazilian company JBS SA to make a number of changes. The investors call on the company to: address bribing issues in Brazil, ensure observance of labour rights in the supply chain and future inclusion of ESG assessments of the salary at management level in the remuneration structure.

Chevron Corp
PFA is aware of the environmental risks that Chevron has assumed in Ecuador in connection with the company’s acquisition of Texaco in 2001. In 1995, Texaco was sentenced to pay for the rectification of the environmental damage in Ecuador. After having paid damages, Texaco’s activities and commitments in Ecuador were taken over by their joint venture partner, Petroecuador. In 2013, Chevron was sentenced to pay damages based on Texaco’s activities – a suit that was later rejected in the US in 2014 and 2016 because of corruption and bribery during the lawsuit in Ecuador. Because of the conviction in the US, PFA has decided not to enter into dialogue with Chevron concerning Texaco’s previous activities in Ecuador unless new information gives cause for it.

Phillips 66
In cooperation with other investors, PFA has approached Phillips 66 in connection with its investment in the Dakota Access Pipeline project (DAPL). Phillips 66 has agreed to enter into dialogue, and PFA’s focus is on how the company will improve its policies and conduct, especially in relation to the UN Special Rapporteurs' assessment of DAPL’s negative impact on the rights of indigenous people. PFA will focus on the dialogue with Phillips 66 during 2017.


Active ownership and the exercise of PFA’s voting right at foreign companies’ annual general meetings
As part of being an active owner, PFA assesses the possibility of voting at annual general meetings of companies that have proposed resolutions that will promote the specific areas where PFA is in dialogue with the company about improvement. PFA assesses agendas for annual general meetings of the companies on PFA's focus list. PFA’s RI Board decides whether or not PFA should exercise its voting right. In 2017, PFA will work on introducing a more transparent way of facilitating the progress of these efforts and below describe examples of the areas that PFA have backed at a given vote:

Chevron
PFA has decided to support proposals that: the company should publish a report of its lobbying activities, the chairman of the board of directors should be independent, and shareholders holding more than 10 % of the shares should be able to call an extraordinary general meeting. PFA has decided not to back a proposal that the company should make a report about its transition to a low CO2 economy. The reason behind this decision is that the company has already taken steps in this direction by publishing their ’Managing Climate Change Risk’ report, which already addresses the subject and signals a change of attitude since the annual general meeting in 2016.

ExxonMobil
At the annual general meeting, PFA decided to back proposals stating that: the company should publish a report of its lobbing activities, the chairman of the board of directors should be independent,  an analysis of Exxon’s role in a two degrees scenario should be published, and  a report on emission of methane gas should be published.

Glencore
Backed that the company from 2017 will focus on reporting strategic adjustments regarding the company’s efforts against climate changes up to 2040 and after.

Exclusion list

PFA evaluates its exclusion list at least once every six months. Companies that systematically and regularly violate PFA’s standards and do not respond to dialogue are excluded from PFA’s investment options. If a company can show that it has improved its practices, PFA’s RI Board can decide to remove the company from the exclusion list. In addition, companies which contribute to the production of controversial weapons such as cluster weapons, anti-personnel landmines or nuclear weapons are systematically excluded from PFA’s investment options.

 

PFA's exclusion list

PFA keeps an exclusion list of companies and countries that do not comply with our guidelines for responsible investments. This means that we exclude companies that violate PFA's guidelines and that do not respond to dialogue concerning changing or righting any infringement of standards. In addition, companies that produce certain types of controversial weapons and weapons in contravention of international law are excluded. Finally, countries are excluded if trade sanctions exist against the country or if PFA’s RI Board has assessed that the country is not suitable for investment.

Exclusion of a company or country may be reconsidered if it can be proven that the cause for exclusion has ceased and that the company or country in question has improved its routines.

Systematic exclusion of companies
PFA does not want to invest in companies that produce controversial weapons such as cluster weapons, anti-personnel landmines or nuclear weapons. Our strategy towards this type of company is non-involvement, and we systematically exclude them from all investment activities.

PFA excludes companies that conflict with the following treaties and conventions:

- The UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW, including Protocols I-V)
- The UN Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)
- The UN Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)
- The UN Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction (the Ottawa Convention)
- The UN Convention on Cluster Munitions (the Oslo Convention)

Latest exclusions
PFA has excluded Energy Transfer Equity and its subsidiary Energy Transfer Partners.
PFA has tried to establish dialogue with Energy Transfer Equity, which is the parent company of Energy Transfer Partners, which is responsible for constructing and running the Dakota Access Pipeline. The intention was to put focus on Dakota Access Pipeline’s negative impact on the rights of indigenous people in the area where the pipeline is constructed. However, neither PFA nor PFA’s screening and engagement company has been able to initiate dialogue with Energy Transfer Equity.

PFA supports the UN Special Rapporteurs' assessment of the case concerning Dakota Access Pipeline, and the activities conflict with PFA's policy for responsible investments. As the company does not wish to enter into dialogue, PFA has sold off its investment and excluded Energy Transfer Equity and its subsidiary Energy Transfer Partners.

Latest cancellation of exclusion
In 2017, PFA cancelled its exclusion of L-3 Communications, as it has been confirmed that the company no longer is involved in the production of cluster weapons.

Total overview - exclusions

company country industry Cause for exclusion
Human rights
Elbit Systems  Israel Electronics Violation of basic human rights, which conflicts with UN Global Compact principles 1 and 2
Energy Transfer Equity  USA  Energy  Violation of basic human rights, which conflicts with UN Global Compact principles 1 and 2 
Energy Transfer Partners  USA  Energy  Violation of basic human rights, which conflicts with UN Global Compact principles 1 and 2 
HeidelbergCement Germany Materials Violation of basic human rights, which conflicts with UN Global Compact principles 1 and 2
Incitec Pivot Ltd Australia Chemistry Violation of basic human rights, which conflicts with UN Global Compact principles 1 and 2
Labour rights
Wal Mart USA Retail Violation of basic labour rights, which conflicts with UN Global Compact principles 3 and 4
Environment
Canadian Natural Resources Ltd Canada Energy Primarily involved in tar sands activities, which are especially polluting.
Canadian Oil Sands Ltd Canada Energy Primarily involved in tar sands activities, which are especially polluting.
Cenovus Energy Inc  Canada Energy Primarily involved in tar sands activities, which are especially polluting.
Husky Energy Inc Canada Energy Primarily involved in tar sands activities, which are especially polluting.
Imperial Oil Ltd Canada Energy Primarily involved in tar sands activities, which are especially polluting.
MEG Energy Corp Canada Energy Primarily involved in tar sands activities, which are especially polluting.
Suncor Energy Inc Canada  Energy Primarily involved in tar sands activities, which are especially polluting.
Cluster weapons, anti-personnel landmines and nuclear weapons
AECOM Technology Corp. USA  Defence equipment Involved in the production of nuclear weapons
Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings USA  Defence equipment Involved in the production of nuclear weapons and cluster weapons 
Airbus Group France  Defence equipment Involved in the production of nuclear weapons 
BAE Systems plc. UK Defence equipment Involved in the production of nuclear weapons
Boeing Co. USA  Defence equipment Involved in the production of nuclear weapons
Leonardo SPA Italy Defence equipment Involved in the production of nuclear weapons
Flour Corp. USA  Defence quipment  Involved in the production of nuclear weapons
General Dynamics USA  Defence equipment Involved in the production of nuclear weapons and cluster weapons
Hanwha Corp South Korea  Defence equipment Involved in the production of cluster weapons
Honeywell International Inc USA  Defence equipment Involved in the production of nuclear weapons 
Huntington Ingalls Industries USA  Defence equipment Involved in the production of nuclear weapons 
Jacobs Ingeneering UK Defence equipment Involved in the production of nuclear weapons
Lockheed Martin USA  Defence equipment Involved in the production of nuclear weapons and cluster weapons 
Northcorp Grumman Corp USA  Defence equipment Involved in the production of nuclear weapons and cluster weapons 
Orbital ATK USA  Defence equipment Involved in the production of nuclear weapons and cluster weapons 
Poongsan Corp South Korea  Defence equipment Involved in the production of cluster weapons 
Poongsan Holding Corp South Korea  Defence equipment Involved in the production of cluster weapons 
Raytheon USA  Defence equipment Involved in the production of nuclear weapons 
Safran Group France  Defence equipment Involved in the production of nuclear weapons 
Serco Group UK  Defence equipment Involved in the production of nuclear weapons 
Textron USA  Defence equipment Involved in the production of cluster weapons 

 

Excluded countries

PFA’s investment activities do not cover all the countries in the world, but approximately 2/3. It is not possible to invest in a number of countries, such as North Korea, Syria and Iran, along with a wide range of countries in which investments are not possible because the countries have not issued any bonds or no market exists.

PFA's exclusion list only includes those countries that it is possible to invest in and that PFA has analysed, and which PFA's RI Board has then assessed to not be suitable for investment:

  • Belarus
  • The Republic of the Congo
  • Rwanda
Guidelines for responsible investments in government bonds

PFA has guidelines and a process for evaluating the countries in which we invest. The guidelines are based on the same internationally recognised norms and standards as PFA's policy for responsible investments. The guidelines and the process ensure an ongoing screening and assessment of human rights in the countries, the level of democracy, corruption etc.

 

Read about responsible investments in government bonds

Responsible Investments in government bonds
PFA’s policy for responsible investments is exerted according to the widely recognised international conventions and norms, which are based on the UN Global Compact’s ten principles and the UN-backed principles for responsible investments, PRI.

Investing in government bonds is, in principle, comparable to granting a loan to a country’s government. This may cause challenges in those cases where the country in which the investments are made is characterised by a low-developed democracy with a high degree of corruption. Therefore, PFA has a set of guidelines which incorporates the international principles, and describes the process that applies to those countries in which investments are made.

Read more about PFA’s guidelines for responsible investments in government bonds

Read about PFA’s country screening procedure

In order to implement the guidelines, PFA has developed a process for screening countries. The screening is a three-step process, which includes a number of indicators and country-specific information which are relevant to the assessment of a country, the population's needs and the overall situation in the country. The country screening forms a clear and fact-based basis of decision for PFA’s RI Board, which is the body that determines whether a country is suitable for investment or not.

PFA’s country screening step by step
The three steps that form the basis of the screening are based on all potential countries for investment: Potential countries for investment include approximately 2/3 of all the countries.



First step - Hurdle criteria
Through hurdle criteria, the country is assessed according to the IMF’s categorisation of ‘Advanced Economy’, and whether any sanctions exist against purchasing national debt in the country. Countries that are not categorised by the IMF and which are not subject to any sanctions move on to the next step.

Second step – Country Score Model
The country is assessed according to the Country Score Model, which is based on a number of internationally recognised indicators and indices which cover both human rights, employee rights, the environment and anti-corruption. The model also includes relevant international financial or trade sanctions in which Denmark participates. If a country’s total score is assessed to be unsatisfactory, the country must be analysed further.

Third step – Individual country analysis
The country is assessed on the basis of a country analysis which is based on a range of descriptive indicators from internationally recognised sources, which contribute to identifying the country’s and the population’s situation and development in a number of areas, etc. After the analysis, it is decided whether the country is suitable for investment or not.

At all steps in the screening process, current events, which have not yet been included in the recognised sources, may be considered to be of such importance that PFA decides to either exclude the country based on the events or proceed with further steps in the screening process.

Read more about PFA's country screening procedure

Investment list of countries with government bonds

List of countries in which PFA has invested in government bonds as at 30 June 2017:

  • Albania
  • Angola
  • Argentina
  • Armenia
  • Austria
  • Azerbaijan
  • Belgium
  • Bolivia
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Brazil
  • Bulgaria
  • Cameroon
  • Canada
  • Chile
  • China
  • Colombia
  • Costa Rica
  • Croatia
  • Denmark
  • Dominican Republic
  • Ecuador
  • Egypt
  • El Salvador
  • Ethiopia
  • France
  • Gabon
  • Germany
  • Ghana
  • Great Britain
  • Honduras
  • Hungary
  • Indonesia
  • Iraq
  • Ireland
  • Israel
  • Italy
  • The Ivory Coast
  • Jamaica
  • Jordan
  • Kazakhstan
  • Kenya
  • Kuwait
  • Latvia
  • Libanon
  • Lithuania
  • Macedonia
  • Malaysia
  • Mexico
  • Mongolia
  • Morocco
  • Namibia
  • Nauru
  • New Zealand
  • Nigeria
  • Norway
  • Oman
  • Pakistan
  • Panama
  • Paraguay
  • Peru
  • The Philippines
  • Poland
  • Portugal
  • Qatar
  • Romania
  • Russia
  • Saudi Arabi
  • Senegal
  • Serbia
  • South Africa
  • Spain
  • Sri Lanka
  • Suriname
  • Sweden
  • Thailand
  • Tunisia
  • Tyrkey
  • Ukraine
  • Uruguay
  • USA
  • Venezuela
  • Vietnam
  • Zambia

Questions about Corporate Responsibility?


Contact our CR Manager, Mette Vadstrup, at mev@pfa.dk.