WHATX/ESG_Report · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 7.73k
Information pertaining to environmental risk management regulations in APAC.
Governance.
The board of directors and senior management of UBS Asset Management (Hong Kong) Limited (“UBSHK”) and UBS Asset Management (Singapore) Ltd. (“UBSSG”) are informed and kept updated on climate- and environmentrelated risks, respectively. These risks are reviewed by the following bodies in UBSSG and UBSHK: – Asset Management executive team and global heads: The Asset Management executive team at global level is responsible for the overall strategic considerations of integration of climate risks connected to the division’s investment activities, governance and controls.
– Board of directors of UBSSSG / UBSHK: The board of directors is the governing body of UBSSG or UBSHK and is responsible for following the overall direction from the global level as well as the supervision and implementation of climate-related risks. It assumes ultimate responsibility for the conduct, operations and financial soundness of the respective entity, including quarterly meetings to monitor climate-related risks.
– Designated management-level positions: The responsibilities of designated management include ensuring the development, implementation and review of framework, policies, and metrics and allocating adequate resources with appropriate expertise. Regular management meetings are held to monitor the status and progress of efforts to manage climate-related risks.
Our investment and risk management approach to climate risks.
Our overall strategy for managing climate risks is to integrate risk data and insights into our investment management processes. This begins with assessing environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues based on our ESG Material Issues framework, which identifies the most relevant issues per sector making the connection to key value drivers that may impact the investment thesis across sectors. We have updated our ESG Material Issues framework with a sector-based view of exposures to physical and transition climate risks.
During 2022 we onboarded additional climate physical and transition risk datasets. We have enhanced our proprietary ESG Dashboard with this climate physical and transition risk data, and with alerts to highlight the highest risk issuers. This enables research analysts to incorporate physical and transition climate risks into their qualitative ESG risk assessments and resulting ESG risk recommendations, informing portfolio manager investment decisions.
Data and Metrics.
During 2022 we onboarded additional climate physical and transition risk datasets to support ongoing enhancements to our investment management and risk management processes. We have also enhanced our proprietary ESG Dashboard with this climate physical and transition risk data, and with alerts to highlight the highest risk issuers. At a portfolio level, our global risk system provides transparency around GHG emissions.
– Physical risk arises from the impact of weather events and long-term or widespread environmental changes. High physical risks imply high probability of a company’s assets value reduction or production interruption. Our climate physical risk assessment considers events such as heat/cold wave, water stress, flooding, sea-level rise, hurricanes and wildfires, and results in a composite physical risk score. An issuer’s score is measured from 1 to 100, and is an aggregate (weighted average) of risk scores linked to individual assets measured across the climate hazards.
– Transition risk covers the adjustment to an environmentally sustainable economy, including changes in public policies, disruptive technological developments and shifts in consumer and investor preferences. One of the ways we assess transition risk is using an “Earning at risk” approach, which analyzes the unpriced carbon cost to a company as % of its EBITDA (Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization).
135


Sustainability Report 2022 \| Appendix 3 \| Environment 136.
In line with the Securities and Futures Commission’s circular on the management and disclosure of climate-related risks by fund managers and the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s environmental risk management guidelines, we have implemented a multi-scenario analysis for physical and transition risks. Physical risks feature different temperature increase scenarios and transition risks consider different carbon price development scenarios. The scenarios are analyzed for various time horizons up to 2050 which can be used to determine future climate-related risk in investment portfolios. As part of the second line of defense controls performed by Group Risk Control for UBS funds subject to the Hong Kong, Singapore, or Taiwan risk regulations, guidelines, codes, circulars, etc., we integrated climate risk in the risk control and monitoring process including scenario analysis as described above.
For some of our portfolios, the assessment of climate-related risks is not possible in the investment management and risk management processes due to lack of data. For these portfolios, risk assessments will incorporate climate physical and transition risks as data becomes available.
Discretionary portfolios managed in Singapore (Global Wealth Management)
Risk identification Our environmental risk framework for Global Wealth Management’s discretionary portfolios managed in Singapore (and booked there or in Hong Kong) focuses on climate risk data from specialized data providers and is based on exposure to climate sensitivity, from high to low, across physical and transition risks. Identification of material environmental risks is achieved by scenario analyses on mid- and longer-term impact. It is run on our underlying investment models across different climate outcomes, based on weighted portfolio sensitivities to physical and transition risks.
For physical risk, we consider as our central scenario representative concentration pathways (RCP) 4.5 (reflecting expected global warming of 2–3°C by 2100) and associated modeled physical risk implications on asset values by 2030. Additionally, we perform scenario analysis on RCP 2.6 (below 2°C) and RCP 8.5 (more than 4°C under a business-as-usual scenario) into the longer term (2050).
For transition risk, we see carbon earnings at risk as the most directly quantifiable and comparable metric across industry sectors globally, reflecting the reach and complexity of our portfolios. We perform scenario analysis based on three carbon price trajectories (low, medium, high) across four time horizons: short (2025) to long-term (2050), with medium (2030) as our central scenario. Outside of carbon earnings at risk, we recognize the existence of technological, policy and market risks. However, these can vary greatly across sectors and countries. As a result, it is difficult to apply a consistent and credible analysis that remains objective to our global portfolios.
The identification of the middle-of-the-road pathway and 2030 as the central scenario balances multiple factors, namely: the relevance of financial projections, current decarbonization policies and implementation rates, and the need for near-term checkpoints within long-term climate action. For both physical and transition risk, in addition to highlighting portfolios with material sensitivity in high-risk scenarios, we monitor the weighted portfolio sensitivity based on the central scenario.
Data and Disclosure All climate data projections and models are sourced at the issuer level from S&P Trucost and aggregated by UBS. For physical risk, sensitivities are assessed by S&P Trucost based on issuers’ known asset locations and estimated value. For transition risk, earnings sensitivity to carbon is projected under various carbon pricing trajectories in different regions. In both cases, the projections are built upon publicly reported company data, restricting coverage to corporate issuers, which form the bulk of our portfolios. Consequently, exposure to sovereigns or structured products, for example, are not covered at this point. This framework will be reviewed at least annually and progressively enhanced as data availability increases and industry practices develop.
In June 2022, we expanded our coverage of climate risk monitoring to discretionary investment portfolios managed by Global Wealth Management in Singapore, in line with the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) Guidelines on Environmental Risk Management for Asset Managers. Our environmental risk analyses to identify and monitor material risks within our discretionary portfolio strategies managed in Singapore are conducted and reported on an annual basis.
Global Wealth Management has developed a governance and control framework to ensure quality and consistency of data and ongoing monitoring of identified risks, reviewed by regional and global oversight forums and risk committees. We are also working closely with our data providers to continuously enhance the quality of data available to us.
136


Sustainability Report 2022 \| Appendix 3 \| Environment 137.
As part of the 2022 environmental risk analysis, the majority of strategies had no material physical risks identified. However, our transition risk analysis highlighted select strategies with elevated mid-term exposure which are being monitored, and have been reviewed and acknowledged by the relevant governance bodies.
At this point in time, climate risk analyses would not be used to inform capital evaluation either at the asset allocation or instrument selection levels within Global Wealth Management, due to investment scope, limitations of data availabilities, modeling uncertainties and implementation hurdles. The majority of our discretionary portfolios comprise of investment funds from third-party fund managers, including Asset Management where appropriate. Generally, Global Wealth Management acts as an asset allocator and manager of these portfolios but does not control portfolio construction and management within the underlying fund investment solutions. Therefore, on top of developing a climate risk assessment management framework based on underlying investment holdings, we are looking to understand the climate risk management practices established by the managers of the underlying funds.
To that end, in the past we communicated with our fund partners about climate risk issues, including the extent to which environmental / climate risk management processes have been developed and implemented by fund partners, with relevance to the MAS Guidelines on Environmental Risk Management for Asset Managers. We commit to continue having regular communications with our fund partners on the development of environmental / climate risk management processes.
Climate risk data remains a nascent area, and best practice standards or norms have yet to be developed. This results in gaps in data coverage, and the use of proxy or estimation techniques which are known. Financial models typically project up to three years in advance, with significant deterioration in visibility beyond one year. As such, long-term projections used to generate data even for 2030 involve high degrees of uncertainty.
Our overall investment decision-making process is largely driven top-down. While corporate-level data sourced from S&P Trucost has been identified as the best prevailing solution for Global Wealth Management portfolios given its credibility, complexity and reach, the bottom-up dataset is not immediately applicable to integration into Global Wealth Management investment processes without the use of significant aggregation and proxies.
137


Sustainability Report 2022 \| Appendix 4 \| Social 138.
Appendix 4 – Social.
Workforce by the numbers.
This appendix provides supplementary information to “People and culture” in the “Social” section of this report.
As of 31 December 2022, we had 72,597 employees as full-time equivalents (FTEs), 1,212 FTEs more than 31 December 2021. This includes 52.9 FTE non-guaranteed hours employees (29.8 women and 23.1 men) representing hotel staff at Ausbildungszentrum Wolfsberg. In addition, a total of 15,469 external staff members for core business services were active at the end of 2022, primarily in technology and operations roles. This included 1,841 FTEs employed through third parties on short-term contracts to fill positions on an interim basis, which are internally categorized as agency staff, contractors and temporary workers. These workers, who are not employees, hold a wide variety of roles across different departments, such as software engineers, business analysts or tech engineers. Additionally, a total of 13,628 external staff members for non-core business services were active at the end of 2022.
To give the most accurate view of our global workforce, human resources reporting considers a person (working full time or part time) as one headcount. This accounts for the total UBS employee number of 74,022 as of 31 December 2022 (compared with 72,779 as of 31 December 2021). The following tables are all reported on this basis, unless otherwise specified. The percentages in the tables may not total 100 as calculated on the basis of unrounded figures and several numbers in this section were restated due to workforce related changes. The corrections are considered immaterial with a change in single digit in headcount.
Employees: full-time / part-time 31.12.22 31.12.21 31.12.20.
NNumber % Number % Number %
MMale.
Full-time 442,340 96% 42,282 96% 42,912 96%
Part-time 11,631 4% 1,605 4% 1,567 4%
TTotal 43,971 100% 43,887 100% 44,479 100%
FFemale.
Full-time 226,424 88% 25,191 87% 24,604 87%
Part-time 33,627 12% 3,701 13% 3,804 13%
TTotal 30,051 100% 28,892 100% 28,408 100%
GGrand total 74,022 72,779 72,887 1 Our reporting covers key statistics relevant to full- and part-time employees, as well as relevant data about external staff. All data was calculated on / as of 31 December 2022, unless otherwise noted.
138


Sustainability Report 2022 \| Appendix 4 \| Social 139.
Employees: employment term / region 31.12.22 31.12.21 31.12.20.
NNumber % Number % Number %
AAmericas.
Permanent 222,057 100% 21,539 100% 21,623 100%
Limited term 00 0% 0 0% 0 0%
TTotal 22,057 100% 21,539 100% 21,623 100%
AAPAC.
Permanent 116,451 100% 15,584 99% 15,335 99%
Limited term 774 0% 117 1% 101 1%
TTotal 16,525 100% 15,701 100% 15,436 100%
EEMEA (excluding Switzerland)
Permanent 114,669 100% 14,423 100% 14,227 100%
Limited term 44 0% 5 0% 3 0%
TTotal 14,673 100% 14,428 100% 14,230 100%
SSwitzerland.
Permanent 119,737 95% 20,054 95% 20,479 95%
Limited term 11,030 5% 1,057 5% 1,119 5%
TTotal 20,767 100% 21,111 100% 21,598 100%
GGrand total 74,022 72,779 72,887.
Employees: employment term / gender 31.12.22 31.12.21 31.12.20.
NNumber % Number % Number %
MMale.
Permanent 443,365 99% 43,237 99% 43,800 98%
Limited term 6606 1% 650 1% 679 2%
TTotal 43,971 100% 43,887 100% 44,479 100%
FFemale.
Permanent 229,549 98% 28,363 98% 27,864 98%
Limited term 5502 2% 529 2% 544 2%
TTotal 30,051 100% 28,892 100% 28,408 100%
GGrand total 74,022 72,779 72,887.
Note: Limited-term employment is an employment relationship defined by the employee's contract with UBS being limited in duration. Most of these individuals are apprentices in Switzerland.
139


Sustainability Report 2022 \| Appendix 4 \| Social 140.
External hires by age group 31.12.22 31.12.21 31.12.20.
NNumber % Number % Number %
Under 30 55,770 45% 4,337 46% 4,231 46%
Between 30 and 50 66,309 50% 4,571 49% 4,655 50%
Over 50 6614 5% 455 5% 410 4%
TTotal external hires 12,693 100% 9,363 100% 9,296 100%

Information pertaining to environmental risk management regulations in APAC.

Governance.

The board of directors and senior management of UBS Asset Management (Hong Kong) Limited (“UBSHK”) and UBS Asset Management (Singapore) Ltd. (“UBSSG”) are informed and kept updated on climate- and environmentrelated risks, respectively. These risks are reviewed by the following bodies in UBSSG and UBSHK: – Asset Management executive team and global heads: The Asset Management executive team at global level is responsible for the overall strategic considerations of integration of climate risks connected to the division’s investment activities, governance and controls.

– Board of directors of UBSSSG / UBSHK: The board of directors is the governing body of UBSSG or UBSHK and is responsible for following the overall direction from the global level as well as the supervision and implementation of climate-related risks. It assumes ultimate responsibility for the conduct, operations and financial soundness of the respective entity, including quarterly meetings to monitor climate-related risks.

– Designated management-level positions: The responsibilities of designated management include ensuring the development, implementation and review of framework, policies, and metrics and allocating adequate resources with appropriate expertise. Regular management meetings are held to monitor the status and progress of efforts to manage climate-related risks.

Our investment and risk management approach to climate risks.

Our overall strategy for managing climate risks is to integrate risk data and insights into our investment management processes. This begins with assessing environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues based on our ESG Material Issues framework, which identifies the most relevant issues per sector making the connection to key value drivers that may impact the investment thesis across sectors. We have updated our ESG Material Issues framework with a sector-based view of exposures to physical and transition climate risks.

During 2022 we onboarded additional climate physical and transition risk datasets. We have enhanced our proprietary ESG Dashboard with this climate physical and transition risk data, and with alerts to highlight the highest risk issuers. This enables research analysts to incorporate physical and transition climate risks into their qualitative ESG risk assessments and resulting ESG risk recommendations, informing portfolio manager investment decisions.

Data and Metrics.

During 2022 we onboarded additional climate physical and transition risk datasets to support ongoing enhancements to our investment management and risk management processes. We have also enhanced our proprietary ESG Dashboard with this climate physical and transition risk data, and with alerts to highlight the highest risk issuers. At a portfolio level, our global risk system provides transparency around GHG emissions.

– Physical risk arises from the impact of weather events and long-term or widespread environmental changes. High physical risks imply high probability of a company’s assets value reduction or production interruption. Our climate physical risk assessment considers events such as heat/cold wave, water stress, flooding, sea-level rise, hurricanes and wildfires, and results in a composite physical risk score. An issuer’s score is measured from 1 to 100, and is an aggregate (weighted average) of risk scores linked to individual assets measured across the climate hazards.

– Transition risk covers the adjustment to an environmentally sustainable economy, including changes in public policies, disruptive technological developments and shifts in consumer and investor preferences. One of the ways we assess transition risk is using an “Earning at risk” approach, which analyzes the unpriced carbon cost to a company as % of its EBITDA (Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization).

135

Sustainability Report 2022 | Appendix 3 | Environment 136.

In line with the Securities and Futures Commission’s circular on the management and disclosure of climate-related risks by fund managers and the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s environmental risk management guidelines, we have implemented a multi-scenario analysis for physical and transition risks. Physical risks feature different temperature increase scenarios and transition risks consider different carbon price development scenarios. The scenarios are analyzed for various time horizons up to 2050 which can be used to determine future climate-related risk in investment portfolios. As part of the second line of defense controls performed by Group Risk Control for UBS funds subject to the Hong Kong, Singapore, or Taiwan risk regulations, guidelines, codes, circulars, etc., we integrated climate risk in the risk control and monitoring process including scenario analysis as described above.

For some of our portfolios, the assessment of climate-related risks is not possible in the investment management and risk management processes due to lack of data. For these portfolios, risk assessments will incorporate climate physical and transition risks as data becomes available.

Discretionary portfolios managed in Singapore (Global Wealth Management)

Risk identification Our environmental risk framework for Global Wealth Management’s discretionary portfolios managed in Singapore (and booked there or in Hong Kong) focuses on climate risk data from specialized data providers and is based on exposure to climate sensitivity, from high to low, across physical and transition risks. Identification of material environmental risks is achieved by scenario analyses on mid- and longer-term impact. It is run on our underlying investment models across different climate outcomes, based on weighted portfolio sensitivities to physical and transition risks.

For physical risk, we consider as our central scenario representative concentration pathways (RCP) 4.5 (reflecting expected global warming of 2–3°C by 2100) and associated modeled physical risk implications on asset values by 2030. Additionally, we perform scenario analysis on RCP 2.6 (below 2°C) and RCP 8.5 (more than 4°C under a business-as-usual scenario) into the longer term (2050).

For transition risk, we see carbon earnings at risk as the most directly quantifiable and comparable metric across industry sectors globally, reflecting the reach and complexity of our portfolios. We perform scenario analysis based on three carbon price trajectories (low, medium, high) across four time horizons: short (2025) to long-term (2050), with medium (2030) as our central scenario. Outside of carbon earnings at risk, we recognize the existence of technological, policy and market risks. However, these can vary greatly across sectors and countries. As a result, it is difficult to apply a consistent and credible analysis that remains objective to our global portfolios.

The identification of the middle-of-the-road pathway and 2030 as the central scenario balances multiple factors, namely: the relevance of financial projections, current decarbonization policies and implementation rates, and the need for near-term checkpoints within long-term climate action. For both physical and transition risk, in addition to highlighting portfolios with material sensitivity in high-risk scenarios, we monitor the weighted portfolio sensitivity based on the central scenario.

Data and Disclosure All climate data projections and models are sourced at the issuer level from S&P Trucost and aggregated by UBS. For physical risk, sensitivities are assessed by S&P Trucost based on issuers’ known asset locations and estimated value. For transition risk, earnings sensitivity to carbon is projected under various carbon pricing trajectories in different regions. In both cases, the projections are built upon publicly reported company data, restricting coverage to corporate issuers, which form the bulk of our portfolios. Consequently, exposure to sovereigns or structured products, for example, are not covered at this point. This framework will be reviewed at least annually and progressively enhanced as data availability increases and industry practices develop.

In June 2022, we expanded our coverage of climate risk monitoring to discretionary investment portfolios managed by Global Wealth Management in Singapore, in line with the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) Guidelines on Environmental Risk Management for Asset Managers. Our environmental risk analyses to identify and monitor material risks within our discretionary portfolio strategies managed in Singapore are conducted and reported on an annual basis.

Global Wealth Management has developed a governance and control framework to ensure quality and consistency of data and ongoing monitoring of identified risks, reviewed by regional and global oversight forums and risk committees. We are also working closely with our data providers to continuously enhance the quality of data available to us.

136

Sustainability Report 2022 | Appendix 3 | Environment 137.

As part of the 2022 environmental risk analysis, the majority of strategies had no material physical risks identified. However, our transition risk analysis highlighted select strategies with elevated mid-term exposure which are being monitored, and have been reviewed and acknowledged by the relevant governance bodies.

At this point in time, climate risk analyses would not be used to inform capital evaluation either at the asset allocation or instrument selection levels within Global Wealth Management, due to investment scope, limitations of data availabilities, modeling uncertainties and implementation hurdles. The majority of our discretionary portfolios comprise of investment funds from third-party fund managers, including Asset Management where appropriate. Generally, Global Wealth Management acts as an asset allocator and manager of these portfolios but does not control portfolio construction and management within the underlying fund investment solutions. Therefore, on top of developing a climate risk assessment management framework based on underlying investment holdings, we are looking to understand the climate risk management practices established by the managers of the underlying funds.

To that end, in the past we communicated with our fund partners about climate risk issues, including the extent to which environmental / climate risk management processes have been developed and implemented by fund partners, with relevance to the MAS Guidelines on Environmental Risk Management for Asset Managers. We commit to continue having regular communications with our fund partners on the development of environmental / climate risk management processes.

Climate risk data remains a nascent area, and best practice standards or norms have yet to be developed. This results in gaps in data coverage, and the use of proxy or estimation techniques which are known. Financial models typically project up to three years in advance, with significant deterioration in visibility beyond one year. As such, long-term projections used to generate data even for 2030 involve high degrees of uncertainty.

Our overall investment decision-making process is largely driven top-down. While corporate-level data sourced from S&P Trucost has been identified as the best prevailing solution for Global Wealth Management portfolios given its credibility, complexity and reach, the bottom-up dataset is not immediately applicable to integration into Global Wealth Management investment processes without the use of significant aggregation and proxies.

137

Sustainability Report 2022 | Appendix 4 | Social 138.

Appendix 4 – Social.

Workforce by the numbers.

This appendix provides supplementary information to “People and culture” in the “Social” section of this report.

As of 31 December 2022, we had 72,597 employees as full-time equivalents (FTEs), 1,212 FTEs more than 31 December 2021. This includes 52.9 FTE non-guaranteed hours employees (29.8 women and 23.1 men) representing hotel staff at Ausbildungszentrum Wolfsberg. In addition, a total of 15,469 external staff members for core business services were active at the end of 2022, primarily in technology and operations roles. This included 1,841 FTEs employed through third parties on short-term contracts to fill positions on an interim basis, which are internally categorized as agency staff, contractors and temporary workers. These workers, who are not employees, hold a wide variety of roles across different departments, such as software engineers, business analysts or tech engineers. Additionally, a total of 13,628 external staff members for non-core business services were active at the end of 2022.

To give the most accurate view of our global workforce, human resources reporting considers a person (working full time or part time) as one headcount. This accounts for the total UBS employee number of 74,022 as of 31 December 2022 (compared with 72,779 as of 31 December 2021). The following tables are all reported on this basis, unless otherwise specified. The percentages in the tables may not total 100 as calculated on the basis of unrounded figures and several numbers in this section were restated due to workforce related changes. The corrections are considered immaterial with a change in single digit in headcount.

Employees: full-time / part-time 31.12.22 31.12.21 31.12.20.

NNumber % Number % Number %

MMale.

Full-time 442,340 96% 42,282 96% 42,912 96%

Part-time 11,631 4% 1,605 4% 1,567 4%

TTotal 43,971 100% 43,887 100% 44,479 100%

FFemale.

Full-time 226,424 88% 25,191 87% 24,604 87%

Part-time 33,627 12% 3,701 13% 3,804 13%

TTotal 30,051 100% 28,892 100% 28,408 100%

GGrand total 74,022 72,779 72,887 1 Our reporting covers key statistics relevant to full- and part-time employees, as well as relevant data about external staff. All data was calculated on / as of 31 December 2022, unless otherwise noted.

138

Sustainability Report 2022 | Appendix 4 | Social 139.

Employees: employment term / region 31.12.22 31.12.21 31.12.20.

NNumber % Number % Number %

AAmericas.

Permanent 222,057 100% 21,539 100% 21,623 100%

Limited term 00 0% 0 0% 0 0%

TTotal 22,057 100% 21,539 100% 21,623 100%

AAPAC.

Permanent 116,451 100% 15,584 99% 15,335 99%

Limited term 774 0% 117 1% 101 1%

TTotal 16,525 100% 15,701 100% 15,436 100%

EEMEA (excluding Switzerland)

Permanent 114,669 100% 14,423 100% 14,227 100%

Limited term 44 0% 5 0% 3 0%

TTotal 14,673 100% 14,428 100% 14,230 100%

SSwitzerland.

Permanent 119,737 95% 20,054 95% 20,479 95%

Limited term 11,030 5% 1,057 5% 1,119 5%

TTotal 20,767 100% 21,111 100% 21,598 100%

GGrand total 74,022 72,779 72,887.

Employees: employment term / gender 31.12.22 31.12.21 31.12.20.

NNumber % Number % Number %

MMale.

Permanent 443,365 99% 43,237 99% 43,800 98%

Limited term 6606 1% 650 1% 679 2%

TTotal 43,971 100% 43,887 100% 44,479 100%

FFemale.

Permanent 229,549 98% 28,363 98% 27,864 98%

Limited term 5502 2% 529 2% 544 2%

TTotal 30,051 100% 28,892 100% 28,408 100%

GGrand total 74,022 72,779 72,887.

Note: Limited-term employment is an employment relationship defined by the employee's contract with UBS being limited in duration. Most of these individuals are apprentices in Switzerland.

139

Sustainability Report 2022 | Appendix 4 | Social 140.

External hires by age group 31.12.22 31.12.21 31.12.20.

NNumber % Number % Number %

Under 30 55,770 45% 4,337 46% 4,231 46%

Between 30 and 50 66,309 50% 4,571 49% 4,655 50%

Over 50 6614 5% 455 5% 410 4%

TTotal external hires 12,693 100% 9,363 100% 9,296 100%