Indices insights: Can passive investors integrate sustainability without sacrificing returns or diversification?

Indices insights: Can passive investors integrate sustainability without sacrificing returns or diversification?

29-03-2022 | 市场观点

In the third article of the Indices insights series, we highlight how sustainability integration is an accessible choice for passive investors. We demonstrate that carbon footprint reduction and SDG integration can be implemented without compromising investors’ financial objectives.

  • Joop  Huij
    Head of Indices
  • Simon Lansdorp
    PhD, Portfolio Manager

Speed read

  • Carbon footprint reduction and SDG integration are viable options for passive investors
  • Sustainable passive solutions can enjoy similar risk-return characteristics to the market
  • These strategies don’t have to miss out on the diversification benefits of market cap indices

One of the main advantages of passive investing is that such strategies track market indices that offer investors broad diversification in their quest to earn an equity premium. That said, sustainability is now a key consideration for many investors, including those taking the passive route.

In the two previous ‘Indices insights’ articles, we analyzed how different sustainability ratings align with values-based exclusions and thematic impact funds. We concluded that, for investors who are focused on aligning their portfolios with positive impact, SDG scores are more useful than ESG ratings. In this article, we will look closely at the implications of integrating sustainability aspects into passive solutions from an investment perspective.

An oft-heard concern is that a more selective investment approach, as when incorporating sustainability, likely leads to lower returns and less diversification. Thus, a key question is whether the risk-return outcomes of passive investing can be attained only by investing in all index constituents, or if a more selective approach – such as excluding high carbon emitters or companies that have a negative impact on the SDGs – can also suffice.

QR code Wechat

Three different passive solutions, but similar outcomes

In investigating this notion, we ran a few simulations where we applied sustainability screens. In particular, we constructed portfolios that avoided positions in sub-industries with the highest carbon footprint, or excluded investments in stocks that contribute negatively to the SDGs. We compared the performance of these alternative sustainable passive solutions to the unconstrained portfolios that were allowed to invest in both ‘brown’ and ‘green’ industries.

Figure 1 | Return, risk and diversification characteristics are virtually identical for all three passive solutions

Source: FTSE, MSCI, Robeco. The sample period is January 1986 to November 2021.

As shown in Figure 1, we found that employing a simple low-carbon (blue dot) or positive SDG investment approach (orange dot) did not lead to lower historical returns compared to investing in the market index (black dot). The risk levels of the three passive solutions were also similar. The ‘efficient frontiers’ represent the set of optimal portfolios that offered the highest return for a defined level of volatility. Thus, the chart indicates that the potential diversification benefits were virtually identical for a more selective approach that incorporates sustainability (Low-carbon frontier and SDG frontier) and an unrestricted proposition (Unrestricted frontier).

Data and methodology

For our analysis, we used the monthly US dollar returns of FTSE World Developed Index constituents before January 2001 and of MSCI World Index constituents thereafter. The full sample period of our investigation spanned from January 1986 to November 2021. For each month, we constructed market-cap weighted sub-industry portfolios based on the GICS1 classification of stocks.

The sub-industry classification is the most granular within the GICS methodology and resulted in 158 different portfolios as at the end of our sample period. However, certain sub-industries have not always existed, while others have ceased. And in some cases, there were no developed large- or mid-cap stocks that belonged to a sub-industry. Therefore, we used the market index return for the months in which there were no returns at the sub-industry level.

For all sub-industries, we assigned SDG scores based on Robeco’s proprietary SDG framework. The framework provides a clear, objective, consistent and replicable approach to measuring the contributions that companies make to the 17 SDGs. Our method resulted in a baseline sub-industry assessment of the goods produced and/or services provided by a company and how these impacted the SDGs.

Sub-industries that make a positive impact receive SDG scores of +1 to +3 (low positive to high positive), depending on the strength and quality of their contributions. For example, positive contributions can be related to healthcare, medicine and water. Similarly, sub-industries that have a negative impact attain SDG scores of -1 to -3 (low negative to high negative), depending on the severity of their adverse impact. For instance, negative contributions can be linked to gambling, fast food and shale gas. In our analysis, we assumed the SDG scores are fixed over the full sample period.

For our investigation, we avoided any exposure to sub-industries with negative SDG scores when we constructed the SDG-aware portfolios. Similarly, we first ranked all sub-industries on their carbon footprints as at the end of our sample period. Thereafter, we excluded the most pollutive ones when we constructed the low-carbon portfolios. We assumed that present-day high-carbon sub-industries were also high-carbon sub-industries historically.

We then simulated the full sample return and volatility: for each market-cap-weighted sub-industry portfolio, the market index (market-cap-weighted combination of sub-industries), low-carbon index (market index excluding high carbon footprint sub-industries), and SDG index (market index excluding sub-industries with negative SDG scores).

Moreover, we constructed three different efficient frontiers, as depicted in Figure 1. The unrestricted frontier is based on the full universe, the low-carbon frontier is based on a more limited pool as it has zero exposure to high carbon footprint sub-industries, and the SDG frontier is based on a more restricted group as it excludes sub-industries with negative SDGs. These were constructed using historical sub-industry returns, and as such, are based on hindsight knowledge. It is also important to note that, by definition, the restricted frontiers (Low carbon and SDG) cannot lie north or west of the unrestricted frontier.

Sustainable Indices
Sustainable Indices
Our expertise in sustainable and factor investing gives us the unique ability to offer investors more sustainable index solutions.
Read more


Given the findings from our analysis, we conclude that integrating sustainability aspects as an investment restriction can result in risk-return characteristics and diversification benefits that are similar to those of passive market-cap indices over the long term. Therefore, we believe sustainability considerations such as carbon footprint reduction and SDG integration are viable options for passive investors.

In the next ‘Indices insights’ articles, we will scrutinize the effects of sustainability integration in the context of active and factor investing approaches as opposed to a passive investment proposition. Specifically, we will first analyze the implications of applying sustainability screens on the factor characteristics of the investable universe. Then we will investigate if the applications of such screens lead to lower expected factor premiums and, if so, to what extent.

1 The Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS) is an industry taxonomy developed by MSCI and Standard & Poor's. It is a four-tiered, hierarchical industry classification system.

  Background to sustainability metrics

In defining sustainability, investors have a multitude of dimensions and metrics they could consider. For example:

  • Values-based exclusions
  • ESG integration
  • Impact investing

ESG scores typically put more focus on the operations of a business, whereas SDG scores also incorporate the impact that the business' products and/or services have on society.

We see client sustainability objectives increasingly moving towards avoiding controversial businesses (values-based exclusions) and including those that provide sustainable solutions (impact investing). In the first few articles of our Indices Insights series, we will empirically show how the different sustainability metrics (negative screening/exclusions, ESG, SDG) relate to the increasingly impact-oriented client sustainability objectives.



本文由荷宝海外投资基金管理(上海)有限公司(“荷宝上海”)编制, 本文内容仅供参考, 并不构成荷宝上海对任何人的购买或出售任何产品的建议、专业意见、要约、招揽或邀请。本文不应被视为对购买或出售任何投资产品的推荐或采用任何投资策略的建议。本文中的任何内容不得被视为有关法律、税务或投资方面的咨询, 也不表示任何投资或策略适合您的个人情况, 或以其他方式构成对您个人的推荐。 本文中所包含的信息和/或分析系根据荷宝上海所认为的可信渠道而获得的信息准备而成。荷宝上海不就其准确性、正确性、实用性或完整性作出任何陈述, 也不对因使用本文中的信息和/或分析而造成的损失承担任何责任。荷宝上海或其他任何关联机构及其董事、高级管理人员、员工均不对任何人因其依据本文所含信息而造成的任何直接或间接的损失或损害或任何其他后果承担责任或义务。 本文包含一些有关于未来业务、目标、管理纪律或其他方面的前瞻性陈述与预测, 这些陈述含有假设、风险和不确定性, 且是建立在截止到本文编写之日已有的信息之上。基于此, 我们不能保证这些前瞻性情况都会发生, 实际情况可能会与本文中的陈述具有一定的差别。我们不能保证本文中的统计信息在任何特定条件下都是准确、适当和完整的, 亦不能保证这些统计信息以及据以得出这些信息的假设能够反映荷宝上海可能遇到的市场条件或未来表现。本文中的信息是基于当前的市场情况, 这很有可能因随后的市场事件或其他原因而发生变化, 本文内容可能因此未反映最新情况,荷宝上海不负责更新本文, 或对本文中不准确或遗漏之信息进行纠正。