October 09, 2025

Ramun, you regularly suggest companies that you think would be a good fit for our sustainable investment universe. Unfortunately, only a few make it into our investment universe because we have high sustainability requirements - which can certainly be a little frustrating for you. Where do you see the differences between your understanding of sustainability and ours?

I don't believe that our approaches are fundamentally different or even contradictory. We simply have a different focus. For me, the focus is on the longevity of a company - in other words, the question: Where will it be in five or ten years' time? Will it still be able to sell its products or services on a larger scale or at higher prices? The decisive factor for me is also how the management deploys capital: Is it prepared to invest in the future, even if this reduces profits in the short term? But I admit: the fact that you really have something to say in sustainability research at Forma Futura and limit our scope in portfolio management also challenges me in a positive way. It forces me to get creative and take a closer look when looking for exciting investments.

I'm glad to hear that! For us, the classification of a company as "sustainable" is always based on a variety of factors. This label, if you like, is the result of a comprehensive, qualitative assessment process that goes beyond the standard ESG model. Of course, we also include numerous social, environmental and governance aspects. But we also assess a company's business strategy and products/services. We set different priorities depending on the company, as not every sustainability issue is equally relevant in every sector.

I understand that very well. However, I would find it exciting if the time dimension were to be given greater consideration in your sustainability methodology. From a portfolio management perspective, it is also crucial how the company management balances the demands of different stakeholders over time.
One example is the US department store Costco - which is not in our universe but would be interesting. Costco has used its economies of scale to lower prices for customers. This has increased customer satisfaction, boosted sales and made the company more competitive in the long term. Such developments show how sustainability and profitability can work together over time.

That makes sense. But shouldn't we take even greater account of the sustainability dimensions precisely because of this long-term perspective? Ecological crises such as climate change, loss of biodiversity or soil degradation, as well as social developments such as migration or demographic changes, pose considerable financial risks. Sustainability is a key success factor from a business perspective - do you agree with that?

Absolutely, companies are part of our ecosystem and depend on intact nature and society. At the same time, we have to remain pragmatic: We invest in a small, strictly curated investment universe with listed stocks - in other words, in companies that are subject to real market forces. This deliberately limited opportunity set is exciting, but also challenging.
This is precisely what makes it interesting for me: dealing creatively with this limitation, making the most of the scope and discovering opportunities that may not fit into the grid at first glance. And combining the economic perspective with the sustainability perspective requires good cooperation between our two teams.