Lloyd’s receives the Farsight Award 2013/14 for their outstanding report “Feast or Famine: Business and Insurance Implications of Food Safety and Security”

Lloyd’s receives the Farsight Award 2013/14 for their outstanding report “Feast or Famine: Business and Insurance Implications of Food Safety and Security”

Yesterday evening, the  Farsight Award 2013/14  was presented to Trevor Maynard and his team at Lloyd’s during the Sustainable City Awards ceremony at Mansion House.

Supported by Gresham College, Z/Yen Group and Long Finance’s London Accord, the Farsight Award honours the best individual piece of analysis by an investment research institution that integrates traditional financial analysis with longer-term environmental social and governance (ESG) issues such as climate change, resource scarcity, corporate governance and human capital. The award rewards excellence and innovation in financial research integrating ESG aspects. The Farsight Award is one of 12 award categories in the Sustainable City Awards organised by the City of London Corporation.

The judges convened in January 2014 to discuss 69 investment research reports. They were extremely pleased by the high quality of the research submitted and by the wide range of ESG issues explored. After a lively discussion, the judges reached the following decision – Winner of the Farsight Award 2013/14: Lloyd’s for their report “Feast or Famine: Business and Insurance Implications of Food Safety and Security“.

Authored by Trevor Maynard, Neil Smith and Sandra Gonzales, “Feast or Famine: Business and Insurance Implications of Food Safety and Security” (May 2013) explores why food safety and security are important issues for businesses, as well as the insurance industry. In particular it looks at how insurance can play a role in risk mitigation, management, innovation and investment in relation to food safety and food security by providing effective risk management advice and expertise, as well as risk transfer.

Melissa Brown, one of the judges, said: “With Feast or Famine, the Lloyd’s team has produced a valuable introduction to how insurers assess food safety and security issues. The report identifies new areas of concern such as supply shocks and agroterrorism and provides a roadmap of possible responses by the insurance industry. This work should be valuable to all members of the financial services community – from equity analysts to risk managers.”

Lloyd’s wins the Farsight Award for the first time after joining the London Accord in 2013. Lloyd’s receives a trophy and will also be given a lecture opportunity with Gresham College as well as receiving recognition from the Long Finance and London Accord communities.

The judging panel decided to commend highly two additional reports:

·        Bank of America Merrill Lynch – “Globesity Primer: the Global Fight Against Obesity” (August 2013)

·        Kepler Cheuvreux – “Remunerations: Publish Why You Pay” (May 2013)

The criteria for the Farsight Award are originality; quality; readability and clarity; sophistication and depth; and financial usefulness. This year, the judges evaluated 69 reports exploring a range of topics including energy, climate change agriculture, responsible investing impact investing but also infrastructure financing, extreme weather events and insurance, remunerations and governance. These reports are all accessible free of charge on the London Accord section of the Long Finance website.

Jan-Peter Onstwedder, one of the judges, said: “The judging experience was difficult as always with a lot of submissions of a similar nature and quality. We were particularly pleased to see the researchers tackle issues like the impact a firm’s remuneration policy has on its risk profile, an area that seems ripe for further research and investigation; and to see that a number of reports looked beyond implications for investors and considered insurance, an important but sometimes overlooked part of the financial industry. New ways of looking at issues that are well understood are always good to see and the judges would encourage researchers to continue to experiment with different approaches.”