Product information for UBS Manage [Sustainable Investing], UBS Manage Advanced [Sustainable Investing], UBS Manage Premium [Sustainable Investing], UBS Manage Premium [Platinum Sustainable Investing]
This website provides information on the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) and is intended exclusively for clients of UBS entities within the European Economic Area (EEA) and EEA residents who are clients of UBS AG Switzerland and are invested in an SI Discretionary mandate.
UBS Manage SI offerings promote environmental or social characteristics but do not have as their objective sustainable investments (SI). The promotion of the environmental and/or social characteristics is done by selecting instruments that aim to finance sustainable economic developments and environmental projects by engaging companies to improve their performance on sustainability issues and opportunities, and by investments that support businesses generating positive outcomes for people and the environment.
The portfolio construction for UBS Manage SI offerings is based on the investor’s risk/return profile. Sustainability characteristics are key drivers, but not the only drivers of investment decisions. UBS Manage SI offerings incorporate material sustainability-related information into the fundamental analysis of assets and investments to ensure relevant risk and performance factors are considered. The offering is constructed exclusively using instruments defined by UBS Global Wealth Management as applying sustainable investing approaches (excluding cash, certain structured products and non-sustainable expressly requested instruments (ERI), if any).
UBS commits to the following proportions in the Manage SI offerings:
- Aligned with environmental and social (E/S) characteristics: 40%
- Sustainable Investments: 30%
- EU Taxonomy alignment: 0%
UBS Manage SI portfolios are managed using a dedicated fund selection process that integrates sustainability criteria into investment research. All funds undergo thorough due diligence before being added to the UBS product universe. This due diligence includes verifying that each fund’s investment process incorporates sustainability factors and that the fund has measures in place to ensure any sustainable investments it makes do not significantly harm environmental or social objectives.
As part of this process, UBS examines whether an underlying fund considers adverse sustainability impacts. For example, funds are expected to identify and limit exposure to activities deemed controversial (such as involvement with certain weapons) or to issuers that violate international norms, including the principles of the United Nations Global Compact. Once a fund is onboarded, UBS monitors it on a regular basis. This includes an annual review, alongside standard investment reviews, to confirm that the fund continues to meet UBS’s sustainability criteria and remains eligible for inclusion in UBS Manage SI portfolios.
UBS also recognises that no single, universally accepted definition of sustainable investing exists. Therefore, determining a fund’s sustainability status involves analytical judgment by UBS. As a result, UBS’s assessment of what qualifies as sustainable may differ from other market participants’ views. To allow robust and consistent evaluations, UBS’s analysis is supported by ESG third-party data and specialised sustainable investing experts who develop internal sustainability methodologies. All sustainability-related assessments are documented and subject to internal governance and approval processes.
When UBS makes direct investments into stocks and bonds as part of the UBS Manage SI offering, these instruments are assessed using a quantitative data-driven methodology that relies on best-in-class sustainability data providers and industry frameworks to identify sustainability performance of issuers of equities and bonds.
For funds in the portfolio, UBS portfolio manager monitors the percentage allocation to assets aligned with E/S characteristics and sustainable investments on a monthly basis (based on data submitted by underlying managers through European ESG Template). The allocation for each individual client portfolio is then aggregated and reported annually.
For single securities in the portfolio, UBS measures fulfilment of sustainability-related criteria on instruments considered ‘eligible’ for the Manage SI offering, and provides clients with both quantitative and qualitative information (e.g. scores) to illustrate how their investments are aligned to sustainability.
UBS does not currently vote proxies on behalf of investors in discretionary portfolios. UBS works with external fund management companies and their ability to vote and engage is a key part of UBS's SI funds assessment.
In case you would like to further discuss the disclosures or require additional translations
(PDF, 160 KB) please contact your client advisor.
This financial product promotes environmental or social characteristics but does not have as its objective sustainable investments.
How the sustainable investment does not significantly harm any of the sustainable investment objectives?
For funds, as part of the due diligence and selection process, UBS checks if there are processes in place by the underlying funds to ensure that the sustainable investments do not cause significant harm to any environmental or social sustainable investment objective. For single securities (if applicable) this is ensured via excluding issuers with adverse impacts.
How have the indicators for adverse impacts on sustainability factors been taken into account?
UBS integrates selected Principal Adverse Impact (PAI) indicators, based on data availability and alignment to UBS Manage SI sustainable objectives, in its investment decision making process:
Funds
UBS invests in underlying funds which typically have a proportion of sustainable investments, and therefore considers principal adverse impact on sustainability factors. As part of the due diligence and selection process, UBS checks if there are processes undertaken by the underlying fund to consider principal adverse impacts on sustainability factors, such as exclusions of controversial weapons or contraventions of UN Global Compact principles. In addition, investment managers must share information on their exclusion policies, i.e. whether exposure to controversial business activities such as weapons, tobacco, gambling and adult entertainment etc., may lead to exclusion of such companies/issuers from the portfolio.
Single Securities
Principal adverse impacts (the “PAI”) are the most significant negative impacts of investment decisions on sustainability factors relating to environmental, social and employee matters, respect for human rights, anti-corruption, and anti-bribery matters.
At present, when assessing DNSH the following PAI indicators are taken into account :
1.3 “GHG intensity of investee companies”
Companies with the highest carbon intensities in non-financial TCFD climate sensitive sectors are considered to fail the DNSH test, unless they have externally verified science-based targets.
1.4 “Exposure to companies active in the fossil fuel sector”
Companies that exceed 20% revenue from thermal coal mining, thermal coal power or oil and gas are considered to fail the DNSH test, unless they have externally verified science-based targets.
1.7 “Activities negatively affecting biodiversity-sensitive areas”
Companies with sites/operations located in or near to biodiversity-sensitive areas whose activities negatively affect those areas and without a biodiversity protection policy are considered to fail the DNSH test.
1.10 “Violations of UN Global Compact principles and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises”
Companies that have severe controversies violating the UN Global Compact principles or the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct are considered to fail the DNSH test.
1.13 “Board gender diversity”
Companies with the lowest percentage of female board members are considered to fail the DNSH test.
1.14 “Exposure to controversial weapons (anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions, chemical weapons and biological weapons)”:
Companies with any tie to landmines, cluster munitions, chemical weapons or biological weapons are considered to fail the DNSH test.
1.15. “GHG Intensity” for sovereigns
Countries with the highest carbon intensities are considered to fail the DNSH test.
1.16. “Investee countries subject to social violations”
Countries with European External Action Service (EEAS) trade sanctions are considered to fail the DNSH test.
The remaining PAI indicators are considered indirectly through the application of the tests described above. Separate tests were not developed for these indicators, mainly due to challenges such as limited data quality, lack of available data, or difficulties in defining what constitutes “significant harm.”
As such, the “GHG intensity of investee companies” (indicator 1.3) is used to address several other indicators, including:
1.1. GHG emissions
1.2. Carbon footprint
1.5. Share of non-renewable energy consumption and production
1.6. Energy consumption intensity per high impact climate sector
Both indicators 1.1, 1.2 measure GHG emissions, with UBS currently assessing them based on GHG intensity. The key difference between indicators 1.2 and 1.3 lies in their methodology: 1.2 uses EVIC (Enterprise Value Including Cash), while 1.3 relies on revenues. Although EVIC and revenues are strongly correlated, revenue-based intensities are less volatile compared to those based on EVIC, making them the preferred approach.
Non-renewable energy consumption and production are the primary drivers of Scope 1 and 2 emissions, which are included in GHG intensity measurements. A company with a high proportion of non-renewable energy production (Scope 1) or consumption (Scope 2) will inherently have higher carbon intensity, which is accounted for in test 1.3.
High energy consumption intensity is closely linked to higher Scope 1 and/or Scope 2 emissions, which are included in GHG intensity measurements. A company with higher energy consumption is likely to have a negative environmental impact if it relies on fossil fuels, leading to increased Scope 1 emissions.
As a result, the test designed for 1.3 is considered the most suitable to address 1.1, 1.2., 1.5 and 1.6.
Additionally, indicator 1.10 (“Violations of UN Global Compact principles and OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises”) is used to address the following indicators:
1.8. Emissions to water
1.9. Hazardous waste and radioactive waste ratio
1.11. Lack of processes and compliance mechanisms to monitor compliance with UN Global Compact principles and OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises
1.12. Unadjusted gender pay gap
The data coverage for those PAI is currently limited, meaning that any test designed specifically for this indicator would not yield meaningful results. However, the test 1.10 identifies violations of UNGC and OECD principles using the MSCI ESG Controversies methodology. Within its environmental and social pillar, this methodology addresses controversies related to water, toxic waste, diversity and discrimination. Those may suggest misalignment with the recommendations under several global norms and conventions, including UN Global Compact principles and OECD guidelines. As a result, this test effectively identifies whether a company is causing significant harm in relation to above PAI.
Using the proxies may result in various limitations. In general, indirect consideration of PAI may not be as accurate as by direct test. However, direct tests would be either impossible to conduct or include limitations on its own, which is why the use of a proxy was determined to be more suitable.
How are the sustainable investments aligned with the “OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises” and the “UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”? Details:
International frameworks such as the UN Global Compact, the “UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights” as well as the “OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises” address rules of environmental and social conduct for companies to act upon responsibly worldwide. UBS takes these guidelines into account in its investment selection process.
Funds
As part of the due diligence and selection process, UBS checks if there are processes in place by the underlying funds to align sustainable investments with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises or the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
Single Securities
As part of our SI methodology, we exclude companies involved in certain controversial business activities (e.g., thermal coal, weapons) (see details below) as well as high severity environmental, social and governance-related incidents that may negatively impact stakeholders, the environment or the company's operations. Examples of such incidents could include bribery or damage to the environment, when the company is directly responsible for such misconducts (e.g., oil-spills). UBS also excludes companies violating OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises” and “UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights”.
UBS Manage SI promotes environmental, social and governance (ESG) characteristics such as, climate change, water, pollution and waste management, gender-related matters and governance. This is done by selecting instruments that aim to finance sustainable economic developments and environmental projects by engaging companies to improve their performance on sustainable issues and opportunities, and investments that support businesses generating positive outcomes for people and planet.
Since UBS Manage SI follows a fund selection process, sustainability criteria are integrated in the investment research process to ensure the selected funds support the sustainability characteristics of your portfolio. As part of this, we:
- identify fund strategies that follow specific sustainable investing (SI) approaches with intentional sustainability benefits and
- evaluate and rate the extent to which any fund strategy incorporates sustainability considerations.
Funds
All underlying funds are assessed with regards to their sustainability intentionality. The assessment is based on an internal sustainable investing framework (“SI Approach”), which indicates the extent to which fund managers consider sustainability aspects in their investment decisions, from security evaluation and selection to portfolio construction. It is a top-down assessment of the manager’s philosophy and process, and hence a reflection of the intentionality rather than an outcome assessment. For your sustainable portfolio, we consider only funds categorized as ‘Align’ or ‘Progress’ or ‘Solve’, or a combination of these (multiple approaches) as explained below. As an exception, cash-like instruments used for hedging purposes are not required to be classified under these categories (i.e., classified as “Traditional*”).
Additionally, all the invested funds fulfil the requirements of art. 8 or 9 SFDR products.
Underlying funds are classified as sustainable with the following possible approaches:
- Align: strategies that predominantly invest in issuers and assets demonstrating better operational sustainability and/or climate transition performance relative to peers.
- Progress: strategies that predominantly invest in issuers and assets with demonstrated potential to show improved sustainability and/or climate transition performance over time.
- Solve: strategies that predominantly invest in issuers and assets providing solutions to sustainability and/or climate transition challenges.
Additionally, Impact investing is a subsetof these; strategies that have explicit intention to generate measurable, verifiable, positive environmental and/or social impact alongside competitive financial returns; investors have active funding contribution or engagement.
* Traditional: this categorytargets market-rate risk-adjusted returns, but with no explicit sustainability intention. Manages sustainability and all risks to investment performance. May use sustainability-related tools or data but these do not drive the strategy.
Single Securities
UBS uses a proprietary scoring methodology for the selection of single securities for your portfolio, based on sustainability data from recognized external data providers. When single securities have been selected for your portfolio, they follow a selection approach that produces scores from zero to ten for each of the six SI topics (climate change, water, pollution and waste, products and services, people, governance). After weighting the six SI topics based on their importance per industry, only the top 20% ranked securities within the relevant investment universe (e.g. global or emerging markets, depending on the strategy) are eligible for your portfolio. From this initial set, companies ranking in the bottom 20% for Governance score are subsequently excluded
For selecting structured products UBS applies the same approach, except for structured products with non-linear pay-off and those used for liquidity or hedging purposes (such as currency trades). UBS ensures that the structured products are issued by a high-scoring firm, i.e. “Align” in UBS definition.
For both, single securities and funds
This sustainability assessment forms a binding part of the investment process and plays a material role in determining portfolio composition.
Exclusions
Single Securities
In addition to proprietary sustainability assessments, UBS applies exclusions relating to certain controversial business activities and high severity incidents. These exclusions form part of the binding investment framework for single securities. They are applicable to ‘Align – issuers’ strategies, and do not apply to ‘Solve – Thematic bonds’ and ‘Solve – Multilateral development bank bonds’ strategies.
Business activity | Threshold (% of revenues) |
|---|---|
Adult Entertainment | 5% |
Alcohol | 5% (production) 10% (related products and services, incl. sales) |
Gambling | 5% |
Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) | 5% |
Oil sands | 5% |
Thermal coal | 5% |
Tobacco | Any involvement (production) 10% (related products and services, incl. sales) |
Weapons | Any involvement (controversial weapons) 5% (conventional weapons) 5% (small arms) |
Funds
As UBS does not control the investment decisions of underlying managers, it does not impose uniform exclusion thresholds across all funds. Instead, UBS assesses the exclusion criteria applied to underlying funds against its internal reference framework. This assessment informs its view of a fund’s sustainability intentionality and supports its classification (e.g., “Align,” “Progress,” “Solve”). Where exposures exceed UBS reference thresholds, UBS engages with the manager to understand the rationale. Outcomes are considered case by case and may, but do not necessarily, lead to disinvestment.
Additional information relation to single securities and funds
Exclusion criteria applied in the Manage SI help limit exposure to activities that may pose financial risks, while also reducing investment in areas with negative environmental or social effects.
These exclusions are based on criteria common for UBS Global Wealth Management and are generally applied consistently across UBS Manage SI strategies.
Overall, the exclusion framework is intended to limit exposure to controversial business activities across the investable universe. The resulting impact on portfolio composition (i.e., the number of companies excluded) is expected to be limited.
The portfolio construction for UBS Manage SI is based on the risk/return profile that you have chosen. Sustainability characteristics are key drivers, but not the only drivers of investment decisions. UBS Manage SI incorporates material sustainability-related information into the fundamental analysis of assets and investments to ensure relevant risk and performance factors are considered. This involves understanding how fund managers and issuers handle sustainability risks that could entail significant costs or capture opportunities arising from major sustainability-related themes and trends. SI discretionary mandates are constructed exclusively using SI strategies defined by UBS (excluding cash, certain structured products and non-SI ERIs).
SI strategies currently include (and may be expanded or changed in the future at UBS’s discretion):
- Align: strategies that predominantly invest in issuers and assets demonstrating better operational sustainability and/or climate transition performance relative to peers.
- Align – (Emerging Market) Issuers: equities or bonds of (Emerging Market) issuers demonstrating better operational sustainability and/or climate transition performance relative to peers, according to GWM methodology.
- Progress: strategies that predominantly invest in issuers and assets with demonstrated potential to show improved sustainability and/or climate transition performance over time.
- Progress – Engagement (i): strategies where fund managers actively engage with issuers with the aim of driving progress on sustainability and/or climate transition related topics. This solution is an impact investment.
- Solve: strategies that predominantly invest in issuers and assets providing solutions to sustainability and/or climate transition challenges.
- Solve – Emerging market finance: strategies that predominantly comprise fixed income and currency solutions to provide private funding in emerging markets and support the efforts of development finance institutions.
- Solve – Thematic bonds: strategies that invest predominantly in bonds that finance environmental and/or social projects and activities, as well as a transition process toward stronger sustainability credentials (include green, social, sustainable and sustainability-linked bonds).
- Solve – Multilateral development bank bond (i): strategies that invest predominantly in bonds issued by multilateral development banks (MDB), such as the World Bank, directly or via managed solutions. Proceeds are directed with the intent to generate positive environmental and/or social impact through development finance. This solution is an impact investment.
- Solve – Thematic multilateral development bank bond (i): bonds issued by MDB, such as the World Bank, that finance environmental and/or social projects and activities, as well as a transition process toward stronger sustainability credentials (include green, social, sustainable, and sustainability-linked MDB bonds). This solution is an impact investment.
- Solve – Issuers: equities of issuers that provide solutions to sustainability and/or climate transition challenges, according to GWM methodology.
- Multiple approaches: strategies that incorporate several approaches in the portfolio construction and investment process (for example, Align and Progress, or across multiple asset classes).
Information on policy to assess good governance practices of the investee companies, including with respect to sound management structures, employee relations, remuneration of staff and tax compliance
Funds
For your portfolio, UBS selects funds that fulfil the requirements of Art. 8 or Art. 9 SFDR classification (excluding liquidity) for which adherence to good governance is a regulatory requirement.
Single Securities
Good corporate governance is a key driver of sustainable performance and is therefore embedded in UBS investment strategy. Assessment of good governance includes consideration of management structures, employee relations, remuneration of staff and tax compliance. UBS relies on an external provider’s data and excludes companies which cause, contribute or are linked to violations of those 4 pillars in a material manner. In addition, good governance is supported by assessing whether companies adhere to minimum standards as defined by the ten principles of the United Nations Global Compact Principles. Access to high-quality data necessary for assessing sustainability-related matters may be limited. Please note that, in the absence of available data about governance, the issuer will be deemed to have passed the “good governance” test, as there is no evidence indicating non-compliance.
All instruments selected (excluding liquidity, certain structured products and expressly requested non-SI instruments (ERIs)) for UBS Manage SI are either aligned with E/S characteristics or even sustainable investments with an environmental or social objective. In this respect, the planned minimum proportions in UBS Manage SI offerings are as follows:
- Aligned with E/S characteristics: 40%
- Sustainable Investments: 30%
- EU Taxonomy: 0%
UBS Manage SI does not commit to making EU Taxonomy aligned investments. However, certain investments in the portfolio may happen to be aligned with the EU Taxonomy.
Funds
In the course of a normal fund monitoring process, adherence to the SI approach is monitored. Fund managers are asked annually to update the questionnaire to monitor any potential changes. During periodic meetings, the funds’ results and people or process changes (incl. SI strategy) will be discussed, assessed and reported. The analyst recommendation level will be re-evaluated in all aspects.
The sustainability assessment is reviewed at least annually as part of the standard investment review process. Where this review indicates that a fund no longer meets UBS’s sustainability-related criteria, including in cases of a material deterioration in its sustainability profile, the fund analyst may recommend that the fund is no longer eligible for inclusion in UBS Manage SI portfolios. Similarly, a significant improvement in the SI assessment may lead to a fund meeting the criteria for one of the SI approaches in the SI Strategic Asset Allocation (SAA) and becoming eligible for selection for an SI portfolio.
Single securities
UBS applies SI methodology for eligible universe of equities and bonds identified as eligible for the Manage SI offering. Such methodology is created, reviewed and updated (if necessary) by the Sustainability Scoring Methodology Board of the UBS Chief Investment Office. The Board meets every six months and comprises of various members of the investment teams. An independent academic expert is an advisor to the Board. All changes to methodology must be approved by the committee.
The sustainability scores for issuers resulting from the methodology are then calculated twice per year. At each update quality and accuracy are being checked. If an issuer falls out of the eligible universe, portfolio managers must sell those securities from the Manage SI portfolios (if they are held). Ad hoc interim updates are performed if there are any new severe controversies that would lead to the exclusion of issuers from the eligible sustainable investing universe.
Single Securities
UBS measures fulfilment of sustainability-related criteria on instruments considered ‘eligible’ for the Manage SI offering and provides clients with both quantitative and qualitative information (e.g. scores) to illustrate how their investments are aligned to sustainability.
Funds
For funds in the portfolio, the UBS portfolio manager monitors the percentage allocation to assets aligned with E/S characteristics on a monthly basis (based on data submitted by underlying managers through European ESG Template). The allocation for each individual client portfolio is then aggregated and reported annually.
For information on data sources and processing, please see latest version of CIO Sustainability Scoring Methodology for Issuers (PDF, 4.2 MB) paper. It describes our approach to evaluating sustainability performance for corporates and issuers, aggregating sustainability-related information from multiple data providers to form a view on the sustainability performance of potential investments. There is no universally agreed approach to evaluating corporate sustainability, but the UBS methodology is based on current industry best practices and is subject to continued evaluation and iteration to ensure relevance in this evolving space.
With our in-house scoring approach, we hope to contribute to informed decision-making by private investors, whilst navigating and addressing the challenges of data quality, investment applicability, and transparency.
Funds
For fund selection, UBS applies a portfolio‑level assessment to determine how each fund’s investment approach aligns with UBS internal categories.
Limitations – UBS recognises that no single, universally accepted definition of sustainable investing exists. Therefore, determining a fund’s sustainability status involves analytical judgment by UBS. As a result, UBS’s assessment of what qualifies as sustainable may differ from other market participants’ views.
Mitigations - To allow robust and consistent evaluations, UBS’s analysis is supported by ESG third-party data and specialised sustainable investing experts who develop internal sustainability methodologies. All sustainability-related assessments are documented and subject to internal governance and approval processes.
Single securities
For the single securities with “Align” strategies, UBS relies on a rule-driven methodology for scoring and aggregating sustainability data.
Limitations – there are some widely acknowledged limitations to this process, including data gaps, differences in regional corporate disclosure, sector differences and differences between score methodologies with weighting of issues.
Mitigations – UBS has developed a data processing methodology where UBS sources data from multiple best-in-class providers and aggregates it according to an internal methodology (see methodology paper described above). UBS owns and calculates the proprietary process in-house so it is fully transparent and controllable. In addition, an independent academic expert advises the methodology development.
Funds
UBS conducts in-depth due diligence on shortlisted fund provider before onboarding any funds to the UBS product universe. This process applies to all funds, including those considered for UBS Manage SI portfolios. Based on the collected information, UBS forms a documented assessment of the quality of each investment process, including how sustainability considerations are integrated. The due diligence process includes proprietary questionnaires and interviews where the investment manager is required to provide fund-specific information including sustainability practices, such as how sustainability factors are incorporated into investment decisions or the firm’s broader SI-related commitments.
For inclusion in UBS Manage SI discretionary mandate or portfolio, a fund investment approach must fit into one of the SI approaches defined by UBS in the Sustainable Investing Strategic Asset Allocation, e.g., Align, Progress, Progress - Engagement” etc. (see UBS white paper "Investing for returns and good (PDF, 1 MB)").
Single securities
The majority of the single securities invested in UBS Manage SI follows an ”Align” approach. UBS Chief Investment Office calculates corporate sustainability scores that indicate how well an issuer performs against a set of sustainability-related metrics. UBS has developed an in-house proprietary methodology to generate the scores. The process relies on data sourced from multiple best-in-class sustainability data providers chosen based on their area of expertise. Our methodology is also in line with the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB, now ISSB under IFRS), which identifies the sustainability issues that impact value creation and financial performance across industries. To be selected for the Manage SI offering, the issuer must meet in-house criteria for inclusion in the eligible sustainable investing universe as well as comply with relevant regulatory requirements. When issuers are no longer eligible, portfolio managers must sell those securities from the Manage SI portfolios (if they are held).
UBS does not currently vote proxies on behalf of investors in discretionary portfolios. UBS sources funds from external fund management companies. Their ability to vote and engage is part of UBS's sustainability assessment for funds.
Last update: July 2026