Head of Sustainability Integration
• SI Debate
SI Dilemma: To ESG or not to ESG? The burden of proof is increasing
As a responsible and sustainable investor for many years, I am used to being asked many critical questions. On the performance of sustainable investing; on our impact (or lack of it) as allocators of capital; and whether or not we are capable as active owners of achieving any results.
概要
- Sustainable investors are used to facing critical questions
- The burden of proof on whether ESG works is increasing
- This trend leads to separating the wheat from the chaff
And for all of these seemingly easy questions, the answers are much more complicated than most people expect. Luckily over the years I have seen the knowledge and expertise increase for the different forms and tools used to implement sustainability. Many clients are now well aware of what they can do, be it negative screening, ESG integration, net-zero portfolios or alignment with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. They also understand the impact of ESG on their risk-adjusted expected returns, or have it calculated by their managers.
However, it is no longer enough to understand and be able to answer these questions. The burden of proof on sustainable investors is increasing rapidly. This is quite a nuisance, as it requires a lot of investment to increase transparency, specifically to meet the requirements in the EU Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR).
To try to do this, we have enhanced our existing sustainability, exclusion and stewardship policies, adding a good governance test, a sustainability risk policy and a principle adverse impact (PAI) statement, along with documents describing our sustainable research methodologies and data approach. We added very detailed information on our sustainability approach for all of our funds in the prospectuses, and on the Robeco website. Doing this once already required a lot of effort, but this information also needs to be regularly updated and maintained.
And I have not even started talking about all the local labels that our clients request us to have, which all have their own requirements! The same goes for our net-zero commitment, which is more voluntary – but if we subscribe to something, we aim to achieve it. Again, it requires quite some effort to build a net-zero roadmap and make sure our measurements are based on high-quality data so that we can report our progress every year.
A focus on outcomes
There is more and more of a focus on outcomes. The Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) started this in their new assessment of institutional investors. They are not only asking for policies and procedures, but also for outcomes and portfolio information.
In the same way, the PAI indicators of the SFDR require us to report not only on greenhouse gas emissions and the percentage of fossil fuels in a portfolio, but also on the gender pay gap and the ratio of female to male board members, among other things. One can question how clients should interpret and compare this information, and also the data quality. But this is really bringing sustainable investing to the next level in that we need to show what our investment portfolios look like on key metrics.
We are slowly seeing that these developments are separating the wheat from the chaff. This is sometimes because managers do not support the investment belief that taking sustainability into account actually leads to better-informed decisions, lower risk or better world outcomes.
Politically driven
Sometimes this is also very politically driven, like we are currently seeing in the US. The difficulty of truly delivering on sustainability promises, and also the ability to explain clearly to clients what sustainable investing is, leaves some market participants either changing their behavior positively, or taking a step back from SI.
An example of changing behavior is the fact that some of the US managers that supported the State Financials Officers Foundations, which is known for its anti-ESG lobbying, are not renewing their membership.1 On the other hand, an example of those stepping back from SI is Vanguard withdrawing from the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative. It claimed that the alliance’s collaborative commitment to fighting climate change had resulted “in confusion about the views of individual investment firms”.2
Easy steps have been taken
To ESG or not to ESG is the big question these days. The easy steps have been taken, but a greater focus on greenwashing and actual outcomes, and an increasing burden of reporting is leading to managers reviewing their positions. At Robeco, we keep true to our approach to ESG, stewardship and sustainable investing. We take the long-term view.
We would like to see the burden of proof to be extended to the whole market though. A good example is the VICE investing fund. As the opposite of sustainable investing, this is also a values-based investing strategy. So, what about their performance? According to the numbers on the fund’s website, similarly critical questions could rightfully be asked!
SI Debate
重要資料
本網站僅供《證券及期貨條例》（香港法例第571章）及其附屬法例所界定之專業投資者瀏覽及使用。 投資涉及風險。過往表現並不代表未來表現。本網站所載資料僅供參考之用，並不構成任何投資建議，亦非作出買賣任何證券或採納任何投資策略之要約或招攬。投資者不應僅憑本網站提供之資料作出投資決定，在作出任何投資決定前，應徵詢獨立意見（包括有關稅務影響之意見）。投資者應確保完全理解投資產品的相關風險，亦應考量自身投資目標及風險承受水平。投資乃閣下之個人決定。除非銷售投資產品的中介人已向閣下告知該投資產品適合閣下，並已解釋其符合閣下投資目標之原因，否則閣下不應投資。請參閱相關發售文件或其他法律文件，以獲取包括風險因素在內的進一步詳情。 本網站由荷寶投資管理香港有限公司發布，該公司受香港證券及期貨事務監察委員會（「證監會」）規管（中央編號：APU851）。本網站未經證監會審閱。 無法保證任何投資產品可實現其投資目標。概不就任何投資產品之表現或投資回報作任何聲明或承諾。投資的價值或會波動。本網站所載過往表現、推算或預測，均不應視作未來表現之保證或指標，且概不提供任何明示或暗示之保證。本網站內容建基於相信為可靠之來源，惟因應資料傳遞技術特性及須採用多項數據來源（包括第三方內容），故概不保證其準確性。所述觀點僅乃截至上述日期，或會隨市況變化而改變，可予更改而毋須另行通知。該等意見可能有別於其他荷寶投資專業人士之意見。因使用本材料或當中所載任何評論、意見或估算而引致之直接、間接或相應損失，荷寶概不承擔法律責任。荷寶並無責任更新本網站或任何網站內容。未經荷寶事先書面許可，不得複製、分發或刊發本網站任何材料。 除非另有說明，資料來源:荷寶。
