Bank's Policy
Animal Farming & Food Production
30%
Assessed policy
Extract of the policy that covers, or comes closest to covering this criterium
The Allianz screening approach criteria are informed by:
- various national, EU and international regulations
- standards and best practice guidance on humane treatment of animals and
- Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (UK) standards.
(…)
Following an assessment of company, sector and country-specific ESG risk databases, animal welfare-related transactions are screened on the following criteria:
- Absence of assurance or certification of farm’s management of animal welfare
- Absence of mitigation of negative impacts on animal wellbeing
- Animal living conditions below sector average
- Occurrence of routine mutilation (e.g. teeth clipping, tail docking, dehorning, de-budding/de-horning, mulesing or beak trimming) without anesthetic or other distress reducing measures
(…)
Comments on score: The policy requires an animal welfare screen but it does not set requirements and does not cover all the elements of the 5 Freedoms.
Assessed policy
Extract of the policy that covers, or comes closest to covering this criterium
Following an assessment of company, sector and country-specific ESG risk databases, animal welfare-related transactions are screened on the following criteria:
Risks related to agricultural practices:
- Animal living conditions below sector average
Comments on score: The policy does not prohibit cages
Assessed policy
Extract of the policy that covers, or comes closest to covering this criterium
Following an assessment of company, sector and country-specific ESG risk databases, animal welfare-related transactions are screened on the following criteria:
- Absence of mitigation of negative impacts on animal wellbeing
Animal living conditions below sector average
Comments on score: The sector average does not guarantee adequate environmental conditions, and therefore this criterion is not sufficiently covered
Assessed policy
Extract of the policy that covers, or comes closest to covering this criterium
Following an assessment of company, sector and country-specific ESG risk databases, animal welfare-related transactions are screened on the following criteria:
Risks related to agricultural practices:
- Occurrence of routine mutilation (e.g. teeth clipping, tail docking, dehorning, de-budding/de-horning, mulesing or beak trimming) without anesthetic or other distress reducing measures
Comments on score: Mutilations are flagged as a risk, but the criteria do not say they should be avoided
Assessed policy
Extract of the policy that covers, or comes closest to covering this criterium
not covered
Comments on score: not covered
Assessed policy
Extract of the policy that covers, or comes closest to covering this criterium
Following an assessment of company, sector and country-specific ESG risk databases, animal welfare-related transactions are screened on the following criteria:
Risks related to agricultural practices:
- Animal transport (incl. loading and unloading) exceeding 8 hours
Comments on score: The policy makes recommendations for the duration of transport, but does not require clients to comply.
Assessed policy
Extract of the policy that covers, or comes closest to covering this criterium
Following an assessment of company, sector and country-specific ESG risk databases, animal welfare-related transactions are screened on the following criteria:
Risks related to agricultural practices:
- Slaughter practices without pre-slaughter stunning
Comments on score: The policy includes a screening on slaughter practices without stunning, though it does not set clear requirements and states that this should not contravene cultural or religious requirements for the production of animalrelated foodstuffs.
Assessed policy
Extract of the policy that covers, or comes closest to covering this criterium
Following an assessment of company, sector and country-specific ESG risk databases, animal welfare-related transactions are screened on the following criteria:
Risks related to agricultural practices
Absence of assurance or certification of farm’s management of animal welfare
Comments on score: The absence of certification, which can be a proxy for independently audited year reports, is seen as a risk. But there is no strict requirement to report on animal welfare.
Assessed policy
Extract of the policy that covers, or comes closest to covering this criterium
Following an assessment of company, sector and country-specific ESG risk databases, animal welfare-related transactions are screened on the following criteria:
Risks related to agricultural practices :
- Inappropriate use of antibiotics, hormones or other growth promoting substances
Comments on score: The policy includes a screening on the inappropriate use of antibiotics, though it does not set clear requirements
Assessed policy
Extract of the policy that covers, or comes closest to covering this criterium
not covered
Comments on score: not covered
Animal Testing
50%
Assessed policy
Extract of the policy that covers, or comes closest to covering this criterium
3.4.5 Allianz ESG Guideline on Animal Testing
Allianz appreciates the sensitivity around the debate on animal testing. There is a lack of internationally available standards in relation to animal testing. Where testing involving animals occurs, the following principles should be considered: scientific method applied, up-to-date procedures and protocols used, best practice utilized, reduction of pain, suffering, distress, lasting harm avoided, use of alternatives before animal testing sought, continuous improvement of care and housing standards for test subjects.
(…)
Following an assessment of company, sector and country-specific ESG risk databases, animal testing-related transactions are screened on the following criteria:
Risks related to bio-medical research practices
- Animal living conditions below sector average
- Inadequate medical, ethical and scientific review of the trial
- Non-adherence to best practice standards or codes
- Performance of invasive procedures without anesthetic
- Use of Great Apes (e.g. chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, etc.)
- Use of subjects caught in the wild
Reputational risks Negative reputational impacts on Allianz stakeholders (investors, customers, business partners, regulators, staff, …)
Comments on score: The policy highlights a number of risks, but does not prohibit non-medical testing
Assessed policy
Extract of the policy that covers, or comes closest to covering this criterium
3.4.5 Allianz ESG Guideline on Animal Testing
Allianz appreciates the sensitivity around the debate on animal testing. There is a lack of internationally available standards in relation to animal testing. Where testing involving animals occurs, the following principles should be considered: scientific method applied, up-to-date procedures and protocols used, best practice utilized, reduction of pain, suffering, distress, lasting harm avoided, use of alternatives before animal testing sought, continuous improvement of care and housing standards for test subjects.
External Standards and Sources
The Allianz screening approach criteria are informed by the Guiding Principles of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement outlined by the European Commission Directorate-General for Environment and the EU Directive on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.
Following an assessment of company, sector and country-specific ESG risk databases, animal testing-related transactions are screened on the following criteria:
Risks related to bio-medical research practices
- Animal living conditions below sector average
- Inadequate medical, ethical and scientific review of the trial
- Non-adherence to best practice standards or codes
- Performance of invasive procedures without anesthetic
- Use of Great Apes (e.g. chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, etc.)
- Use of subjects caught in the wild
Reputational risks Negative reputational impacts on Allianz stakeholders (investors, customers, business partners, regulators, staff, (…)
Comments on score: The policy mentions the 3Rs
Assessed policy
Extract of the policy that covers, or comes closest to covering this criterium
Following an assessment of company, sector and country-specific ESG risk databases, animal welfare-related transactions are screened on the following criteria:
Risks related to agricultural practices:
- Non-adherence to regulatory requirements on GMO labeling ors, customers, business partners, regulators, staff, …)
Comments on score: Policy does not prohibit GM animals
Pets, Entertainment and Fashion
0%
Assessed policy
Extract of the policy that covers, or comes closest to covering this criterium
not covered
Comments on score: not covered
Assessed policy
Extract of the policy that covers, or comes closest to covering this criterium
not covered
Comments on score: not covered
Assessed policy
Extract of the policy that covers, or comes closest to covering this criterium
not covered
Comments on score: not covered
Assessed policy
Extract of the policy that covers, or comes closest to covering this criterium
not covered
Comments on score: not covered
Governance
0%
Assessed policy
Extract of the policy that covers, or comes closest to covering this criterium
not covered
Comments on score: not covered
Assessed policy
Extract of the policy that covers, or comes closest to covering this criterium
not covered
Comments on score: not covered
Assessed policy
Extract of the policy that covers, or comes closest to covering this criterium
not covered
Comments on score: not covered
Assessed policy
Extract of the policy that covers, or comes closest to covering this criterium
Asset Owner Alliance
The UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance (AOA), of which Allianz is a founding member, has set its first target range for portfolio decarbonization until 2025.
Comments on score: The bank does have transition finance products, however, food systems and animal welfare are not mentioned