How to Integrate ESG into Investment Decision‐Making: Results of a Global Survey of Institutional Investors

The authors review the findings of their global survey of 582 institutional investors that were either practicing or planning to practice some degree of integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors into their investment decision‐making process. The investors were evenly split between asset owners and asset managers, equity and fixed income, and across the three regions of the Americas, Asia Pacific, Europe, Middle East, and Africa. The survey explored reasons for ESG investing; the barriers to such investing and investor approaches to overcoming them; and the time frames used for making investment decisions, evaluating the performance of managers, and awarding compensation. The authors report finding that the commonly perceived barriers to ESG integration—the belief that ESG integration requires sacrificing returns, that fiduciary duty prevents one from doing so, and unrealistically short‐term expectations for ESG to deliver outperformance—were not as great as commonly believed. The biggest barrier is the lack of high quality data about the performance of companies on their material ESG factors—a scarcity that the authors attribute to the lack of standards for measuring ESG performance and the lack of ESG performance data reported by companies. The results were very similar between asset owners and asset managers, equity and fixed income, and across regions. However, the investment horizons of asset owners were notably longer than those of asset managers, and the same was true of equity vs. fixed income investors. Investors in the Americas were more patient about time frames for seeing outperformance from ESG, while those in Asia Pacific were the least patient. There were also differences across regions in how to overcome the barriers to ESG integration.     

The Evolution of Integrating ESG Analysis into Wealth Management Decisions

Retail investors rely heavily on the advice of their financial advisors. But relatively few of those advisors have begun to incorporate investment strategies based on environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors for their client's portfolios. The author attributes this lack of interest to the disappointing returns of the “first generation” of ESG retail investment products, which approached the topic through a “socially responsible investing” (SRI) lens with mandates to exclude companies and industries viewed as having negative impact on society. These early “negative screening” directives had the effect of reducing the size of the manager's investable universe, which effectively ensured that SRI portfolio would underperform the overall market. The author, who is himself a practicing financial advisor, proposes that an innovative evolutionary process is underway in which investment managers are shifting away from a penchant for “negative screening” to a more inclusive approach he refers to as “best‐in‐class ESG Factor Integration.” And he identifies three main catalysts for this evolution: (1) greater disclosure of ESG data by public companies; (2) the growing accuracy and accessibility of ESG research, from commercial as well as academic sources; and (3) the inclusion of ESG factors with the traditional value drivers emphasized by the fundamental and quantitative methods used by portfolio managers. Although such integration is yet in its early stages, the author is optimistic that this growing trend will become an important part of an overall sustainable investing movement. No longer confined to large institutional investors, ESG factor integration is now available through a growing number of products and investment platforms.     

Private market impact investing firms: Ownership structure and investment style

Impact investing and ESG investing are specific “ethical” investing types integrating social, environmental, and moral values with financial goals. Despite receiving heightened scholarly attention, the difference between impact and ESG investing is largely unexamined, and it is not clear how they differ from conventional investment. To explain the differences between ESG, impact, and conventional investing, this paper draws on a dataset of over 8000 private market investment (PMI) firms. It compares impact, ESG, and conventional investment across firm characteristics, investment preference, and ownership. Results show that impact investors are more likely to be owned by the government, focusing on agriculture, cleantech, and education while avoiding “sin” industries like gambling and tobacco.     

ESG for All? The Impact of ESG Screening on Return,Risk, and Diversification

A large body of research has documented a positive relationship between different measures of sustainability—such as indicators of employee satisfaction and effective corporate governance—and corporate financial performance. Nevertheless, many investors still struggle to quantify the value of ESG to investment performance. To address this issue, the authors tested the effects of using different ESG filters on an investable universe that serves as the starting point for a fund manager. In this way, they attempted to determine the extent to which ESG data can add value to any investment approach, regardless of preferences towards sustainable investing. The authors report “an unequivocally positive” contribution to risk‐adjusted returns when using a 10% best‐in‐class ESG screening approach (one that effectively removes companies with the lowest 10% of ESG rankings), both on a global and a developed markets universe. More specifically, as a result of such screening, both the global and developed markets portfolios show higher returns, lower (tail) risk, and no significant reduction of diversification potential despite the reduction in the number of companies. Use of a 25% screening filter was also found to add value, especially by reducing tail risks, but with a larger deviation from the unscreened universe. Overall, then, the authors’ finding is that the incorporation of ESG information contributes to better decision‐making in every investment approach, with the optimal configuration depending on a fund manager's preferences and willingness to deviate from an unscreened benchmark.     

Integrating Systemic Risk into Modern Portfolio Theory and Practice

Conventional wisdom holds that the performance of investment managers should be measured against some broad market index such as the S&P 500. The broad market averages provide a useful benchmark because they are assumed to be beyond the influence of investment managers and provide a way of capturing what financial economists call “systematic risk,” which is the part of total risk that cannot be avoided through portfolio diversification. But one clear limitation of such an approach to performance evaluation is that by focusing on risks and rewards at the portfolio level only, it fails to consider risks and rewards at a systemic level, where the performance of all portfolios is increasingly likely to be affected. The author begins by making the case that the performance evaluation and collective decision‐making of investment managers could have the effect of increasing the level of systematic risk in both the markets and the real economy. Then, after suggesting that the strength or weakness of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) frameworks can have substantial effects on overall market returns, he discusses a number of efforts currently underway to integrate ESG factors into portfolio‐level decision‐making. The author closes by urging asset owners to take the following three steps to help bridge the gap between investment decision‐making and ESG consequences: (1) acknowledge the connection between investment decision‐making and systems‐level risks and rewards; (2) determine which systemic frameworks are most appropriate and useful for their purposes; and (3) implement investment practices that allow them to manage systemic‐level risks and rewards while simultaneously achieving competitive financial returns in their portfolios. With the help of new measurement and management tools, asset owners can strengthen systemic frameworks, communicate the importance of ESG performance to their investees and investors, and align their efforts with those of governmental and non‐governmental organizations to limit systemic risk.     

ESG Integration in Investment Management: Myths and Realities

The number of public companies reporting ESG information grew from fewer than 20 in the early 1990s to 8,500 by 2014. Moreover, by the end of 2014, over 1,400 institutional investors that manage some $60 trillion in assets had signed the UN Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI). Nevertheless, companies with high ESG “scores” have continued to be viewed by mainstream investors as unlikely to produce competitive shareholder returns, in part because of the findings of older studies showing low returns from the social responsibility investing of the 1990s. But studies of more recent periods suggest that companies with significant ESG programs have actually outperformed their competitors in a number of important ways. The authors’ aim in this article is to set the record straight on the financial performance of sustainable investing while also correcting a number of other widespread misconceptions about this rapidly growing set of principles and methods: Myth Number 1: ESG programs reduce returns on capital and long‐run shareholder value. Reality: Companies committed to ESG are finding competitive advantages in product, labor, and capital markets; and portfolios that have integrated “material” ESG metrics have provided average returns to their investors that are superior to those of conventional portfolios, while exhibiting lower risk. Myth Number 2: ESG is already well integrated into mainstream investment management. Reality: The UNPRI signatories have committed themselves only to adhering to a set of principles for responsible investment, a standard that falls well short of integrating ESG considerations into their investment decisions. Myth Number 3: Companies cannot influence the kind of shareholders who buy their shares, and corporate managers must often sacrifice sustainability goals to meet the quarterly earnings targets of increasingly short‐term‐oriented investors. Reality: Companies that pursue major sustainability initiatives, and publicize them in integrated reports and other communications with investors, have also generally succeeded in attracting disproportionate numbers of longer‐term shareholders. Myth Number 4: ESG data for fundamental analysis is scarce and unreliable. Reality: Thanks to the efforts of reporting and investor organizations such as SASB and Ceres, and of CDP data providers like Bloomberg and MSCI, much more “value‐relevant” ESG data on companies has become available in the past ten years. Myth Number 5: ESG adds value almost entirely by limiting risks. Reality: Along with lower risk and a lower cost of capital, companies with high ESG scores have also experienced increases in operating efficiency and expansions into new markets. Myth Number 6: Consideration of ESG factors might create a conflict with fiduciary duty for some investors. Reality: Many ESG factors have been shown to have positive correlations with corporate financial performance and value, prompting ERISA in 2015 to reverse its earlier instructions to pension funds about the legitimacy of taking account of “non‐financial” considerations when investing in companies.     

Responsible Investors: Who They Are,What They Want

This article by a long‐time partner in Domini Social Investments, a well‐known socially responsible investment firm, begins by describing four different approaches that institutional investors have currently adopted as they account for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations in their investment decisions: (1) the incorporation of internationally accepted ESG norms and standards (as set forth in, for example, the FTSE4Good Indexes); (2) the use of industry‐specific ESG ratings and rankings (such as those used for the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes); (3) the integration of ESG considerations into stock valuation (as advocated, for example, in the Principles of Responsible Investment); and (4) the identification of companies whose business models successfully address the most pressing societal needs (often referred to as “impact investing”). The article then seeks to answer the question: what corporate ESG programs and policies can be most effectively used by managers seeking to attract institutional investors using these different approaches? The author describes three kinds of corporate ESG programs. In one approach, corporate managers focus on strengthening relations with non‐investor stakeholders, including employees, the environment, and local communities. In the second approach, corporations seek to create “shared value” by emphasizing products and services that help address society's most pressing needs. The third approach focuses on identifying and addressing the firm's industry‐specific ESG performance indicators (KPIs) that are most material to stockholders and other stakeholders. Given institutional investors' growing commitment to the incorporation of ESG concerns, corporate managers should understand the range of investors' approaches to ESG and how to account for them in their strategic planning. At the same time, they are encouraged to develop comprehensive ESG policies and goals, devote adequate resources to their implementation, and communicate efforts effectively to these investors and to the public.     

Integrating Sustainability Into Capital Markets: Bloomberg LP And ESG's Quantitative Legitimacy

The rise in prominence of environmental, social, and governance data has been driven in large part by a growing interest among investors who seek to gain an edge through the incorporation of such data in their investment decision‐making. There are, however, several significant obstacles to the integration of ESG data into mainstream investing analysis. Perhaps most important, while finance today is a fundamentally quantitative discipline, ESG is often qualitative. Moreover, the ESG data that is available is incomplete and inconsistent, due largely to a reliance on voluntary reporting by individual companies. In short, ESG has not yet earned its quantitative legitimacy in the eyes of the investor community. Nevertheless, recent work in the area of stranded asset values has provided Bloomberg LP, a leading provider of financial data and analytics, an opportunity to “bridge theory and practice” by translating the stranded assets framework into a first‐cut valuation tool designed for mainstream financial analysts. The tool offers a quantitative introduction to an ESG issue that the authors believe will eventually become an important focus of many investment decision‐makers' analysis. While the tool continues to evolve in analytical sophistication, the authors “preview” it here in its early form as one step towards Bloomberg's broader vision of “sustainable finance,” and the company's role in supporting the quantitative maturation of ESG through the twin engines of standardization and disclosure.     

Sustainability priorities,corporate strategy,and investor behavior

Using a sequential experiment, this study examines whether integration of material environmental, social, and governance (ESG) priorities into corporate strategy impacts investors’ short‐ and long‐term stock price assessments and investment allocation. In our examination, we consider the potential moderating effect of financial performance. We find that integration of ESG priorities into strategy does not have a significant effect on investors’ price assessments or investment allocation. This is true regardless of the trend in the company's financial performance. Our results hold across various demographics and the levels of investment knowledge and investment experience. Investors’ perception of relevance and reliability of material ESG information, however, has a mediating effect on their long‐term price assessment and investment allocation. Overall, our findings suggest that any future requirements on disclosure of ESG information by regulators and standard setters should aim to improve investors’ perception of the relevance and reliability of that information.     

Bridging Sustainability and Finance: The Value Driver Adjustment Approach

Even though most large corporations view sustainability considerations and concerns as having the potential to affect their revenue and profits, and studies have shown that sustainability can affect stock returns, investors and corporate managers continue to struggle to incorporate such concerns into their financial decision‐making. As a consequence, the valuation effects of sustainability issues are not fully reflected in either the valuation of companies by investors or in capital investment decisions by corporate managers. The author argues that sustainability can be integrated into both of these kinds of financial decision‐making by linking it to business models, competitive positions, and value drivers using what the author calls a “value‐driver adjustment” (VDA) approach. The basic idea is simple: material sustainability issues affect business models and competitive positions, which in turn affect the company's value drivers—notably, sales, margins, and capital. The VDA approach explicitly considers these linkages by taking three steps: (1) identifying a company's material sustainability issues; (2) analyzing how these issues are expected to affect the company's business model and competitive position; and (3) quantifying the effects of such changes in business model and competitive position on the company's value drivers, including its cost of capital. In the first part of the article, the author provides an investor perspective that shows how sustainability can be integrated into investment decisions by asset managers. There he explains how and why ESG integration has so far failed to become mainstream, and what needs to be done to make it successful. The second part of this article takes the corporate perspective and shows how sustainability can be linked to value drivers using much the same ingredients as in asset management, but slightly different tools that can help corporate managers incorporate sustainability concerns into strategy and operations, including the finance function. And in closing, the author brings together corporate and investor perspectives while showing how sustainability programs can be used to make the relationship between companies and their shareholders both stronger and longer‐lasting.     

Corporate social responsibility as a common risk factor

This article challenges factor models widely used to explain stock returns. For European firms involved in corporate social responsibility (CSR) actions, we find a risk premium associated with extra-financial ratings priced by the market (that is, environmental, social, and governance [ESG] ratings). This premium is calculated as the excess return of low-rated firms compared to high-rated firms. To describe rated firms' returns, we propose a parsimonious two-factor model that includes both the market factor and this premium. Unlike the CAPM, three-, or five-factor models, our model is validated by the Gibbons, Ross and Shanken (1989) test. Our results lead to many managerial implications related to portfolio management, asset pricing, and corporate financial and investing decisions.     

Analysts' Roundtable on Integrating ESG into Investment Decision‐Making

In this third of the three discussions that took place at the SASB 2016 Symposium, practitioners of a broad range of investment approaches—active as well as passive in both equities and fixed‐income—explain how and why they use ESG information when evaluating companies and making their investment decisions. There was general agreement that successful ESG investing depends on integrating ESG factors with the methods and data of traditional “fundamental” financial statement analysis. And in support of this claim, a number of the panelists noted that some of the world's best “business value investors,” including Warren Buffett, have long incorporated environmental, social, and governance considerations into their investment decision‐making. In the analysis of such active fundamental investors, ESG concerns tend to show up as risk factors that can translate into higher costs of capital and lower values. And companies' effectiveness in managing such factors, as ref lected in high ESG scores and rankings, is viewed by many fundamental investors as an indicator of management “quality,” a reliable demonstration of the corporate commitment to investing in the company's future. Moreover, some fixed‐income investors are equally if not more concerned than equity investors about ESG exposures. ESG factors can have pronounced effects on performance by generating “tail risks” that can materialize in both going‐concern and default scenarios. And the rating agencies have long attempted to reflect some of these risks in their analysis, though with mixed success. What is relatively new, however, is the frequency with which fixed income investors are engaging companies on ESG topics. And even large institutional investors with heavily indexed portfolios have become more aggressive in engaging their portfolio companies on ESG issues. Although the traditional ESG filters used by such investors were designed mainly just to screen out tobacco, firearms, and other “sin” shares from equity portfolios, investors' interest in “tilting” their portfolios toward positive sustainability factors, in the form of lowcarbon and gender‐balanced ETFs and other kinds of “smart beta” portfolios, has gained considerable momentum.     

Exchange Rates and the Conversion of Currency‐Specific Risk Premia

How do the risk factors that drive asset prices influence exchange rates? Are the parameters of asset price processes relevant for specifying exchange rate processes? Most international asset pricing models focus on the analysis of asset returns given exchange rate processes. Little work has been done on the analysis of exchange rates dependent on asset returns. This paper uses an international stochastic discount factor (SDF) framework to analyse the interplay between asset prices and exchange rates. So far, this approach has only been implemented in international term structure models. We find that exchange rates serve to convert currency‐specific discount factors and currency‐specific prices of risk – a result linked to the international arbitrage pricing theory (IAPT). Our empirical investigation of exchange rates and stock markets of four countries presents evidence for the conversion of currency‐specific risk premia by exchange rates.     

Stock investments for German life insurers in the current low interest environment: more homework to do

Currently a stock market rally and at the same time extremely low interest rates can be observed. This coincides with more volatile risk premiums for interest baring assets like government bonds. The mixture makes life harder for investment managers of (especially life) insurances. They have to continuously find profitable investments with good returns for the customers’ money, in case of the life insurers, in order to be able to pay at least the promised returns of the contracts. After the stock market burst around the turn of the century the levels of stock investments by German insurers have declined significantly, therefore also missing out on the rises leading up to the Lehman crash and also not participating in recent developments. With insurance asset managers avoiding stocks in the past years the questions can be raised, if they are forfeiting a good opportunity for their portfolio and if there is still time to participate in possible future gains. On the other hand the upcoming regulatory environment, namely Solvency II, will play an important role in the future and likely already has an impact on the investment decisions of the companies. Higher capital requirements for stock investments make it even harder to earn the so-called “Garantiezins”. Without ignoring the risks related to stock investments, effectively banning equities from asset managers’ buy lists might lead to missing out on desperately needed returns for the life insurance industry. So policy makers probably should reconsider their directives. This paper evaluates the attractiveness of stock investments from a long term as well as a risk adjusted perspective using e.g. different indicators and commonly used measurements for stocks with a rather conservative focus, in order to possibly get some insight into the future performance of stocks. Looking back to a decade of boom and bust cycles in the equity markets does not necessary rule out stocks as an important source for returns. The results are discussed comprehensively also in face of the regulatory changes to come. In the end timing plays a major role and due to that the current valuation of stocks as well as the look ahead are of vital importance. Assessing the reliability of professional forecasts for financial market time series—in this context especially for stocks as well as interest rates—plays an important role for asset managers.     

DIVERGENT EXPECTATIONS AND THE ASIAN FINANCIAL CRISIS OF 1997

An important question concerning integration of global financial markets is whether local investors in an equity market react differently from international investors, particularly during periods of financial crisis. Considering local investors are closer to information, they might turn pessimistic before foreign investors before a crisis. We examine whether local investors in each of the six Asian stock markets—Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Thailand—reacted differently from international investors during the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Our empirical results indicate that, in general, closed‐end country fund share prices (mainly driven by foreign investors) Granger‐cause the respective net asset values (NAVs, mainly driven by local investors). Moreover, this one‐way Granger‐causality effect from share prices to NAVs becomes much stronger during the crisis period after controlling for U.S. stock returns. Our results suggest international investors turned pessimistic before local investors. JEL classification: G15     

The effects of mandatory ESG disclosure on price discovery efficiency around the world

We examine the effect of mandatory environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure on firms' price discovery efficiency around the world. Using data from 45 countries between 2000 and 2020 and a difference-in-differences method, we find that mandatory ESG disclosure increases firm-level stock price non-synchronicity and timeliness of price discovery, suggesting more firm-specific information is incorporated into stock prices in a more timely manner. Mandatory ESG disclosure improves price discovery efficiency more in countries with strong demands for ESG information and in firms with poor disclosure incentives. Mandatory ESG disclosure also leads to other real market changes, such as lower stock returns, greater changes in institutional ownership and higher firm valuation.     

Risk sharing in a financial market with endogenous option prices

This article investigates a financial market in which investors may trade in risk-free bonds, stock and put options written on the stock. In each period, stock and option prices are simultaneously determined by market clearing. While the introduction of put options will decrease the systematic risk in the financial market, it will increase the price of risk. Investors with mean-variance preferences will generally hold portfolios containing the primary asset and the put option and may use the option to increase the risk in their wealth position in exchange for higher returns. Aggregate wealth is unaffected by an option market when there are no spillover effects on stock prices, and it is shown that short selling of options will increase the volatility of individual wealth positions. Investors with erroneous beliefs may on average be better off not trading in put options.     

房价预期与城镇居民家庭股市参与——理论探讨与微观经验证据

本文基于中国家庭金融调查数据,通过构建理论模型和实证检验分析了房价预期与家庭股市参与的关系,考察了行为金融偏差在房价预期影响股市参与过程中的作用,并根据背景风险、社会网络和户主特征进行异质性分析。结果表明:(1)房价上涨预期通过降低居民家庭的股票收益率预期和增加住房资产,进而降低居民家庭的股市参与概率和参与程度;(2)“心理账户”以及“有限关注”的存在显著弱化了房价上涨预期对家庭股市参与的负向作用;(3)房价上涨预期对股市参与概率和参与程度的负向作用在收入风险更高、健康状况更差、社会网络水平较低以及受教育程度偏低的家庭中更大。因此,稳定房价预期能够通过提升家庭股市参与,进而从需求角度促进股票市场的健康发展。     

Equity market integration in the NAFTA region: Evidence from unit root and cointegration tests

This study examines integration of the three participating equity markets before and after the 1993 passage of NAFTA based on daily, weekly, and monthly data. As expected, unit root tests for the overall period 1988-2001 and the two subperiods, 1988-1993 (pre-NAFTA) and 1994-2001 (post-NAFTA), indicate that stock prices are non-stationary but stock returns are generally stationary for all three markets for all three periods. However, daily, weekly, and monthly equity prices in the three NAFTA countries are cointegrated only for the post-NAFTA period. Similarly, US stock prices are more integrated with both Canadian and Mexican stock prices after the passage of NAFTA. This evidence of increased financial integration and co-movement in NAFTA equity markets after the passage of NAFTA has important implications for policymakers and managers.     

Time and frequency connectedness of green equity indices: Uncovering a socially important link to Bitcoin

Green investment funds continue to interest as a sustainable non-conventional asset class. We examine their interconnectedness, using network and wavelet analyses, with both traditional and non-traditional financial assets. Results indicate that global stock market performance, along with the returns of emerging markets, commodity markets, and FinTech are strongly correlated with green indices. However, in comparison, Bitcoin is found to be isolated, as confirmed by wavelet analyses. When considering the evolution of green investment indices, their role as diversifiers to Bitcoin is especially interesting, suggesting many potential benefits for investors and policymakers. Perhaps the most prominent application of our results is for Bitcoin investors to consider more closely investing in green funds as an offset to concerns about the negative environmental consequences of investing in proof-of-work cryptocurrencies.