As I ready for a current presentation, I pulled some information from a report my firm had revealed six months earlier on developments in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing, socially accountable investing (SRI), and affect investing.
What I discovered shocked me.
UN PRI Signatories and Their Assets beneath Management (AUM)
The above graph reveals two information collection: The blue line represents the asset managers which have signed on to the United Nations-supported Principles of Responsible Investing (UN PRI), and the inexperienced bars show the entire belongings beneath administration (AUM) held by these corporations. In 2006, roughly six corporations with a mixed $200 billion in AUM had been signatories. Ten years later, 60 corporations with a complete of $14 trillion in international AUM had been on board.
The chart beneath, taken from the identical report, reveals what portion of that $14 trillion is from the United States. Note the numerous leap in 2014.
US Investment Funds Incorporating ESG Factors
The transfer from $1 trillion in 2012 to over $4 trillion simply two years later shocked me — a 300% change because the variety of funds grew from round 650 to roughly 800. The most up-to-date information from 2016, which isn’t proven within the chart, signifies nearly $9 trillion in total assets.
The query that struck me once I noticed all this: Did all the asset managers that are actually factoring ESG into their funding course of shift all $4 trillion in belongings the day they signed up with the PRI?
The reply, after all, is not any. Nothing modified. Not actually, anyway. While the transfer into ESG investing demonstrates higher consciousness on the a part of funding managers, the components themselves are “soft” of their utility. As Christopher Scott Peck, Hal Brill, and Michael Kramer noticed in The Resilient Investor:
“ . . . we recognize that the softer ESG ‘considerations’ approach, while a step in the right direction, is less socially and environmentally impactful than SRI’s traditionally more active approach of designing portfolios and mutual funds to screen out the worst actors and seek out companies charting beneficial new directions.”
The stampede of asset managers into ESG during the last 4 years is paying homage to one other time and one other trade.
In the 1980s, the emergence of natural farming created a possibility for food producers to distinguish themselves and their merchandise. Overnight, many farmers started claiming their crops and livestock had been “organic.” Not till practically twenty years later, when regulators caught up and requirements had been put into place, did the time period “organic” start to hold actual that means for the patron. After all, what does it imply if chickens are “free range”? How a lot “range” does a rooster have to be “free range”?
Like natural farming 30 years in the past, ESG investing at present has grey areas.
The downside for ESG asset homeowners and buyers is easy methods to first outline their particular ESG targets after which audit or implement these targets beneath their given mandate. Eliminating tobacco shares from a portfolio is easy sufficient. Controlling the carbon footprint of a portfolio is a unique matter altogether. Holding asset managers accountable to a given set of objectives and requirements is vital.
Wherever you stand philosophically, as a sensible matter, the ESG motion is right here to remain. Those who consider within the double or triple backside line don’t suppose there’s a battle between “doing well” and “doing good.” Rather, each targets — performing socially accountable and supporting investor objectives — will not be mutually unique, however mutually reinforcing.
A big physique of educational analysis carried out during the last 30 years backs this up. In “ESG and Financial Performance: Aggregated Evidence from more than 2000 Empirical Studies,” Gunnar Friede, Timo Busch, and Alexander Bassen conduct a meta-analysis of ESG research since 1979 and conclude that 90% present statistical proof of a relationship between ESG components and optimistic monetary outcomes.
We are a good distance from understanding what distinguishes one ESG supervisor from one other and the way we as a society measure the impact of a given ESG portfolio. It’s like attempting to distinguish amongst natural farmers in 1987.
But buyers, regulators, and requirements will catch up.
If you preferred this put up, don’t neglect to subscribe to the Enterprising Investor.
All posts are the opinion of the writer. As such, they shouldn’t be construed as funding recommendation, nor do the opinions expressed essentially mirror the views of CFA Institute or the writer’s employer.
Image credit score: ©Getty Images/Byronsdad