switzerlanden
Fresh capital has not run dry for unsustainable firms

Fresh capital has not run dry for unsustainable firms

11-03-2021 | Research
Despite rising interest in sustainable investing, unsustainable companies have faced no obstacles in raising funds in public markets. To deprive these businesses from fresh capital, sustainable investing needs to become ’business as usual’ in the investment community.
  • David Blitz
    David
    Blitz
    Chief Researcher
  • Jan Anton van Zanten
    Jan Anton
    van Zanten
    SDG Strategist
  • Laurens Swinkels
    Laurens
    Swinkels
    Researcher

Speed read

  • Sustainability has garnered increased attention in recent years
  • Yet unsustainable firms have not been starved of fresh capital
  • Sustainable investing must become the norm going forward
Climate investing: from urgency to solutions
Climate investing: from urgency to solutions
Read more

Sustainable investing has gathered rapid momentum in recent years. This impulse is shifting the goalposts for investments, as investors are increasingly looking for solutions that make an impact alongside financial returns. Asset managers and owners can reach these objectives through active ownership and capital allocation. With active ownership, they can pursue their sustainability goals by voting at shareholder meetings and engaging in constructive dialogue with firms to steer their behavior. They can also vote with their feet, through their capital allocation choices.

Excluding companies, for example ‘sin stocks’, from investable universes is a popular way to make an impact through capital allocation. However, sustainable investing is not limited to negative screening, as it also entails taking larger positions in sustainability leaders. This can be done with the integration of environmental, social and governance (ESG) indicators in investment processes, targeting carbon footprint reductions in portfolios, or aligning investments with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Sustainable investing is not limited to negative screening, as it also entails taking larger positions in sustainability leaders

There can be many reasons to divest from unsustainable firms and shift capital towards more sustainable ones. Some investors are content with simply disassociating themselves from certain businesses, such as the tobacco industry, regardless of whether this will have any effect on the actual production and consumption of tobacco products. Others see it as a signaling tool, even though they acknowledge that this approach likely has no direct impact on the related companies. The third and most ambitious reason is to allocate capital in a way that supports sustainable companies and hurts unsustainable ones. This approach can incentivize the latter to improve their corporate behavior.

Measuring the impact on a firm’s cost of capital

Our analysis examines how sustainable investing has affected capital flows and the financing needs of companies. In principle, divestment would negatively affect the targeted firm, but this mechanism is actually not so clear-cut. Divesting results in a transfer of ownership from one investor to another, which has no direct impact on the firm. However, divestment may hurt companies indirectly by increasing their cost of capital. With this in mind, we argue that the ultimate impact of sustainable investing on listed companies is best evaluated by examining the primary market, i.e. new issues of bonds and stocks.

In our study, we considered all stocks in the MSCI All Countries World Index over the 2010-2019 period. We classified a company as an equity issuer if its number of shares outstanding increased by at least 10% over the year. Similarly, we categorized a company as a debt issuer if the book value of its debt increased by at least 10% over the year. To distinguish between sustainable and unsustainable businesses, we used a broad range of metrics, namely ESG, carbon footprint and SDG dimensions.

Our analysis showed no evidence that fresh capital flowed more towards sustainable firms than towards unsustainable ones

Our analysis showed no evidence that fresh capital flowed more towards sustainable firms than towards unsustainable ones. More specifically, it appears unsustainable companies faced no obstacles in raising funds in public markets. Indeed, the sustainability profile of equity issuers was generally similar to the broad market, while debt issuers even tended to have a below-average sustainability profile. Moreover, our results were stable over time. Capital did not flow more towards sustainable firms in recent years than before.

Therefore, our results suggest that sustainable investing has not been able to starve unsustainable companies from fresh capital over our sample period. We acknowledge that if sustainable investing continues to grow, it may become increasingly hard for unsustainable firms to obtain fresh funding in capital markets. But how much growth would be needed for that, and whether such a scale is realistically attainable, remain open questions.

To deprive unsustainable companies from fresh capital, sustainable investing needs to become ’business as usual’ in the investment community.

Read the full article

Disclaimer

This report is not available for users from countries where the offering of foreign financial services is not permitted, such as US Persons.

Your details are not shared with third parties. This information is exclusively intended for professional investors. All requests are checked.

Logo

Disclaimer Robeco Switzerland Ltd.

The information contained on these pages is for marketing purposes and solely intended for Qualified Investors in accordance with the Swiss Collective Investment Schemes Act of 23 June 2006 (“CISA”) domiciled in Switzerland, Professional Clients in accordance with Annex II of the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (“MiFID II”) domiciled in the European Union und European Economic Area with a license to distribute / promote financial instruments in such capacity or herewith requesting respective information on products and services in their capacity as Professional Clients. 

The Funds are domiciled in Luxembourg and The Netherlands. ACOLIN Fund Services AG, postal address: Affolternstrasse 56, 8050 Zürich, acts as the Swiss representative of the Fund(s). UBS Switzerland AG, Bahnhofstrasse 45, 8001 Zurich, postal address: Europastrasse 2, P.O. Box, CH-8152 Opfikon, acts as the Swiss paying agent. The prospectus, the Key Investor Information Documents (KIIDs), the articles of association, the annual and semi-annual reports of the Fund(s) may be obtained, on simple request and free of charge, at the office of the Swiss representative ACOLIN Fund Services AG. The prospectuses are also available via the website www.robeco.ch. Some funds about which information is shown on these pages may fall outside the scope of the Swiss Collective Investment Schemes Act of 26 June 2006 (“CISA”) and therefore do not (need to) have a license from or registration with the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA). 

Some funds about which information is shown on this website may not be available in your domicile country. Please check the registration status in your respective domicile country. To view the RobecoSwitzerland Ltd. products that are registered/available in your country, please go to the respective Fund Selector, which can be found on this website and select your country of domicile. 

Neither information nor any opinion expressed on this website constitutes a solicitation, an offer or a recommendation to buy, sell or dispose of any investment, to engage in any other transaction or to provide any investment advice or service. An investment in a Robeco Switzerland Ltd. product should only be made after reading the related legal documents such as management regulations, prospectuses, annual and semi-annual reports. 

By clicking “I agree” you confirm that you/the company you represent falls under one of the above-mentioned categories of addressees and that you have read, understood and accept the terms of use for this website.

I Disagree