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).
Enhancing disclosure
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!
免責聲明
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。