Many investors either incorporate sustainability considerations in their portfolios or plan to do so in the future. One of the key motivating factors for this adoption is that it enables investors to align with positive impact, i.e., by allocating capital to companies that are sustainable and which benefit society, while avoiding investments in those that inflict significant harm on it. To achieve this, investors often rely on readily available ESG ratings.
It is, however, important to assess whether these ESG scores appropriately measure societal impact. In our analysis, we scrutinized the ESG ratings of companies that are explicitly earmarked by large institutional asset owners as being bad for society. Surprisingly, we found a weak relationship between the firms that are on exclusion lists and their respective ESG ratings. By contrast, there was a much stronger alignment when we used a measure based on the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
For example, Figure 1 shows that more than half of the tobacco producers that are excluded from the portfolios of large asset owners receive an average ESG rating or are even considered ESG leaders by MSCI. Similarly, more than half of these companies are assessed as having neutral or even low ESG risk according to Sustainalytics. By contrast, all of these firms receive the lowest Robeco SDG score of -3, in line with the harmful products they produce. Similarly, we find that stocks that are avoided for other reasons that are deemed important by large asset owners have SDG scores that are seemingly more aligned with the negative impact they inflict on society.
Figure 1 | Scores of companies on exclusion lists, using different sustainability measures
Source: Robeco, MSCI, Sustainalytics.
Data and methodology
For our analysis, we started by collecting exclusion lists. Many institutional investors keep a record of the companies they exclude from their investable universes for regulatory or values-based reasons. Large asset owners often publish ESG policies and sometimes their exclusion lists on their websites. Thus, we were able to download the exclusion lists for some the largest sovereign wealth funds and pension funds globally, as well as their criteria for omitting companies.1
For example, the Norges Bank shares a list of firms that are excluded or under observation for the Government Pension Fund Global. It also provides guidelines which contextualize the reasons why certain businesses are not included in their investable universe, such as precluding investments in companies that produce tobacco-related products given their adverse impact on health.2
We then combined the exclusion lists of the various asset owners and categorized the list of companies according to five commonly used exclusion criteria. Since data coverage is relatively low for micro-cap stocks, we restricted our universe to the constituents of the MSCI ACWI Investable Market Index. In total, we analyzed 293 firms. These were based on the five exclusion criteria: tobacco producers; coal miners and/or coal-based energy producers; controversial weapons manufacturers; companies at fault for significant environmental damage; firms responsible for severe violations of human and/or labor rights.
For each of the stocks that met these exclusion criteria, we analyzed their sustainability scores by referring to three data providers, namely the Robeco SDG scores based on our proprietary SDG framework, MSCI ESG ratings, and Sustainalytics ESG risk ratings. Note that these three data providers use different approaches for their scoring methodologies and that their sustainability scores are not directly comparable.
That said, the sustainability scores clearly differentiate between firms that have a negative, neutral or positive impact on society (Robeco SDG scores); companies that are deemed to be ESG laggards, average in terms of ESG, or ESG leaders (MSCI ESG rating); or businesses that have high, neutral, or low ESG risks (Sustainalytics ESG risk rating).
For instance, the Robeco SDG scores and MSCI ESG ratings apply a categorical scale, ranging from -3 to +3, and from CCC to AAA respectively. The Sustainalytics ESG risk ratings assign a quantitative risk score that is used to place a company in one of five risk categories, ranging from severe to negligible. This is summarized in Table 1.
Source: Robeco, MSCI, Sustainalytics.
Based on our analysis, we conclude that ESG ratings may not effectively capture the impact companies have on society, which is a key consideration for large institutional asset owners. An SDG-based approach takes into account how companies impact the SDGs. In our view, such an approach can enable investors to align their portfolios with positive impact, by avoiding investing in firms that contribute negatively to the SDGs.
Background to sustainability metrics
In defining sustainability, investors have a multitude of dimensions and metrics they could consider. For example:
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 these increasingly impact-oriented client sustainability objectives.
1 We observe that large asset owners in Northern Europe and the Pacific region, in particular, are more likely to disclose their exclusion lists compared to other regions.
2 See: https://www.nbim.no/en/the-fund/responsible-investment/exclusion-of-companies/
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。