Global Financial Sector Actors Including Fair Finance Asia Come Together to Strengthen Sustainable Finance at the Civil Society Policy Forum Alongside the World Bank/IMF Annual Meetings in Washington D.C. – Business Wire

WASHINGTON–(BUSINESS WIRE)–The World Bank Group is deepening financing for development projects through commercial banks as financial intermediaries. However, while established international financial institutions (IFIs) such as the World Bank and the International Financial Corporation (IFC) adhere to high standards in safeguarding, the safeguard policies of intermediary banks and overall environmental, social, and governance (ESG) accountability in countries where they operate still lag behind. Moreover, emerging countries’ Public Finance Institutions are also stepping up cross-border financing for businesses, though thorough environmental and social checks are not fully realized, therefore, compromising the wellbeing of recipient communities.

Fair Finance Asia, together with Responsibank Indonesia and Japan Center for a Sustainable Environment and Society (JACSES), will be organizing a session ‘Reaching the Tipping Point for Sustainable Finance: The Role of Emerging Country Donors & IFIs’ tomorrow, at the World Bank/ IMF Annual meeting. The session will provide a platform for senior representatives from Financial Services Authority of Asian countries, World Bank/ IFC and civil society, to come together to identify steps towards working collaboratively in the implementation of sustainable financing and safeguard policies for emerging country Public Finance Institutions (PFIs) and banks.

Mr. Wimboh Santoso, the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners from Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (OJK), which is the Financial Services Authority of Indonesia, will be speaking at the event. Mr Santoso will be talking about the policies that OJK has put in place to improve sustainability within the financing aspect of commercial banks.

The Global Coordinator of IFC’s Sustainable Banking Network, Rong Zhang, will also be speaking at the event. The World Bank Group and other IFIs are playing a role in developing smart sustainable finance policies. Stakeholders such as the civil society can promote the implementation of sustainable finance policies by tracking and monitoring activities on the ground.

Mr. Makoto Okubo, General Manager of International Affairs at Nippon Life Insurance & Sherpa of the Insurance and Pension Group at the Asia Pacific Financial Forum will join the panel to share insights from the private sector perspective and updates on ESG policy development among the members of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation group.

The panel will also comprise of civil society representatives in the sphere of sustainable finance – Yuki Tanabe, Program Director, JACSES, Myriam Vander Stichele, Senior Researcher at the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) Netherlands and Member of the European Commission’s High Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance, and Bernadette Victorio, Regional Program Coordinator, Fair Finance Asia – thus enabling a multi-stakeholder dialogue on the issue.

The session will be held tomorrow, on October 17, 2019, at the World Bank / IMF Annual Meetings which is currently taking place in Washington D.C., USA.

About Fair Finance Asia

Fair Finance Asia (FFA), an Oxfam initiative, is a network of civil society organizations working in Asia to ensure that financial institutions in the region give due considerations to Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) criteria in their business activities. Seven countries within the region are a part of the FFA: Cambodia, Japan, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam.

###

Read the original article

Index Industry Association’s Third Annual Survey Finds 2.96 Million Indexes Globally – Business Wire

LONDON & NEW YORK–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Index Industry Association (IIA), the first-ever trade association for the index industry, today announced the results of its third annual global index survey. The IIA is the only industry body to quantify the index universe and, according to its latest study, there are 2.96 million indexes globally. According to the IIA’s two previous surveys, the total number of indexes rose from 3.29 million in 2017 to 3.73 million in 2018.

While this represents a 20% decrease since last year’s analysis, it appears the lower number is due to the decommissioning of indexes, a process which occurs every year to ensure indexes are not redundant. Previously, this has been offset by the addition of new indexes, but there were a large number of decommissions in both equities and “other” categories in the past year.

Rick Redding, the CEO of IIA commented: “Every firm continuously evaluates their indexes to see if they are redundant, which helps keep costs down for their clients. Ultimately, our members are focused on providing the quality of indexes investors demand that they administer and not necessarily the quantity.”

Fixed Income and ESG Continue Trajectory of Growth

Fixed income was the asset class that increased by the largest amount, achieving 7.15% growth between 2018 and 2019. When looking at fixed income indexes by geography, Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMEA) experienced the largest increase in the last year, going from 31% to 33% of the total fixed income indexes, while Global fixed income indexes grew by 1%. EMEA is catching up to the Americas, which now account for 34.24% of fixed income indexes. The Americas and Emerging and Frontier Markets saw modest declines of approximately 1% each, while the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region’s indexes decreased by only 0.5%.

Fueled by investor demand, there has also been impressive growth and innovation in Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) indexes over the past year—13.85% across equities and fixed income.

Added Redding, “With three years of data to analyze, we can see interesting trends developing in fixed income and ESG. Index providers are continuing to expand their fixed income offerings to give investors more accurate benchmarks. Moreover, the number and variety of ESG indexes indicate that investors are looking for benchmarks that conform to their investment objectives and beliefs.”

IIA was founded as the first-ever trade association for the index industry and is continuing its expansion to serve the global investor community. Created as a not-for-profit organization for the fast-growing community of index providers, the IIA membership is open to independent index administrators worldwide.

All IIA members separately submitted this information to the IIA and the IIA has not shared it among the members other than in the aggregate form made available to the public. The amount of assets under management benchmarked to these indexes was not in the scope of this project as independent index administrators do not have complete access to this data.

For more information about the IIA or to speak with Rick Redding, please contact Intermarket Communications at IIA@intermarket.com or +1.212.909.4781.

About Index Industry Association (IIA)

IIA is an independent, not-for-profit organization based in New York that represents the global index industry. Founded in March 2012, the association is the first ever index industry trade body and is committed to representing the global index industry by working with market participants, regulators, and other representative bodies to promote competition and sound practices in the index industry to strengthen markets and serve the needs of investors. Our members have calculated indices since 1896 and today administer approximately three million indices for their respective clients covering a number of different asset classes, including equities, fixed income, commodities, and foreign exchange.

Many of the leading index providers in the world are members of IIA, including Bloomberg Indices, CBOE Global Markets, Chicago Booth Center for Research in Security Prices, China Central Depository and Clearing, FTSE Russell, Hang Seng Indexes, ICE Data Services, IHS Markit, Morningstar, MSCI Inc., Nasdaq Global Indexes, Shenzhen Securities Information Co., Ltd., S&P/Dow Jones Indices, STOXX, and Tokyo Stock Exchange. Further information on IIA is available at www.indexindustry.org.

Read the original article

What Is ESG Investing? – The motley Fool

There are a variety of different investing philosophies within the responsible investing realm. One method you may have been hearing about more and more is ESG investing.

The letters “ESG” stand for environmental, social, and governance. Investors who employ this strategy examine criteria within these three categories to analyze stocks. Combining the ESG lens with more traditional stock analysis techniques is known as ESG integration. Anyone can join the swelling ranks of ESG investors by simply learning more and then using this framework in making future investing decisions.

Solar panels with trees and skyscrapers in the background

Environmental, social and governance issues take the front seat in ESG investing. Image source: Getty Images.

It’s no wonder ESG investing is gaining traction. Research is increasingly showing that this investing method can reduce portfolio risk, generate competitive investment returns, and help investors feel good about the stocks they own.

What is ESG?

First, let’s demystify the ESG acronym to highlight what ESG investors look for when seeking stocks to analyze. ESG investing entails researching and factoring in environmental, social, and governance issues, in addition to the usual financials, when evaluating potential stocks for your portfolio.

E is for environmental

The environmental component requires research into a variety of elements that illustrate a company’s impact on the Earth, in both positive and negative ways. A company that’s an actively good steward for the environment might be deserving of your dollars. 

Environmental topics to research and analyze include:

  • Climate change policies, plans, and disclosures.
  • Greenhouse gas emissions goals, and transparency into how the company is meeting those goals.
  • Carbon footprint and carbon intensity (pollution and emissions).
  • Water-related issues and goals, such as usage, conservation, overfishing, and waste disposal.
  • Usage of renewable energy including wind and solar.
  • Recycling and safe disposal practices.
  • Green products, technologies, and infrastructure.
  • Environmental benefits for employees such as cycling programs and environmental-based incentives.
  • Relationship and past history with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other environmental regulatory bodies.

For those details, locate sustainability reports prepared using respected sustainability standards such as Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI). Corporate websites with sustainability pages can be useful for budding ESG investors, but be wary when they don’t contain enough detail to paint a complete picture. For example, we can appreciate companies that demonstrate a commitment to recycling, but that alone would not merit a check in the “E” category. Note how the word “goal” is sprinkled throughout the above bullet points. While goals are nice, concrete numbers and metrics that demonstrate real progress are much better.

Nike (NYSE:NKE) is a company that meets the environmental criteria of ESG. A leader in environmental dedication, Nike has a chief sustainability officer that oversees its many environmental efforts. Its Flyknit and Flyleather products were developed with environmental sustainability in mind. Nike signed onto a coalition of companies called RE100, vowing to source 100% renewable energy across its operations by 2025. There’s more, but any interested investors should read Nike’s latest sustainability report, which uses the GRI framework, the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) — all great examples of the valuable data that ESG investors should look for.

S is for social

The social component consists of people-related elements like company culture and issues that impact employees, customers, consumers, and suppliers — both within the company and in greater society. 

For information on social aspects, ESG investors should look to sustainability reports that use a respected standard like GRI or PRI, because those sustainability reports go beyond environmental issues to include information on employee, supplier, and community elements, too.

A woman holds a meeting with four other people in a conference room with large windows

Image source: Getty Images.

It’s also useful for ESG-minded investors to keep up with respected lists and annual rankings, including Fortune‘s Best Companies to Work For and Forbes’ Just 100. Pay attention to media reports related to how companies treat their employees and their lobbying efforts for or against social justice issues. Another really good place to gauge how a company and its management is received by its workers is employee review website Glassdoor.com.

Social topics to research and analyze include:

  • Employee treatment, pay, benefits, and perks.
  • Employee engagement and staff turnover/churn.
  • Employee training and development.
  • Employee safety policies including sexual harassment prevention.
  • Diversity and inclusion in hiring and in awarding advancement opportunities and raises.
  • Ethical supply chain sourcing, such as conflict-free minerals and responsibly sourced food and coffee.
  • Mission or higher purpose of the business (or lack thereof).
  • Consumer friendliness, customer service responsiveness, and history of consumer protection issues including lawsuits, recalls, and regulatory penalties.
  • Public stance on social justice issues, as well as lobbying efforts.

Accenture (NYSE:ACN) has an admirable workplace approach, earning it a spot on Fortune’s list of Best Companies to Work For for 11 years. Accenture pays close attention to its diversity and inclusion in its workforce. The company plans to improve its workplace gender ratios, with a goal to have 50% female and 50% male employees by the end of 2025. Accenture plans to better its corporate makeup as well, pledging to have at least 25% female managing directors by 2020. If you crack open Accenture’s Corporate Citizenship Report, you will find that its efforts satisfy some of the UN’s SDG framework, and the report also uses the GRI disclosure standard. 

G is for corporate governance

The corporate governance component relates to the board of directors and company oversight, as well as shareholder-friendly versus management-centric attitude. In less dry terms, ESG investors analyze how corporate managements and boards relate to different stakeholders, how the business is run, and whether the corporate incentives align with the business’s success.  

Corporate governance issues come up every year during proxy season, when most companies file their proxy statements announcing their annual meetings. These documents cover a variety of corporate governance topics. Shareholders vote on a variety of issues presented to them annually, such as executive compensation (“say-on-pay”), director appointments, and shareholder proposals. 

Governance topics to research and analyze include:

  • Executive compensation, bonuses, and perks.
  • Compensation tied to metrics that drive long-term business value, not short-term EPS growth.
  • Whether executives are entitled to golden parachutes (huge bonuses upon exit).
  • Diversity of the board of directors and management team.
  • Board of director composition regarding independence and interlocking directorates — which can indicate conflicts of interest.
  • Proxy access.
  • Whether a company has a classified board of directors.
  • Whether chairman and CEO roles are separate.
  • Majority vs. plurality voting for directors.
  • Dual- or multiple-class stock structures.
  • Transparency in communicating with shareholders, and history of lawsuits brought by shareholders.
  • Relationship and history with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and other regulatory bodies.

Intuit (NASDAQ:INTU) satisfies many of the attributes in the corporate governance category. It has achieved a 40% diverse board, one of the highest levels in corporate America today. 

Strong management teams and boards have a significant amount of “skin in the game,” meaning they own shares of the stock they’re steering and a personal incentive to make the company perform well. Intuit displays this with strong stock ownership guidelines that dictate Intuit’s CEO must hold stock worth 10 times their annual salary, and non-employee directors must hold the equivalent of 10 times their annual cash retainers. Intuit shows accountability by tying its executives’ incentive compensation to revenue and non-GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) operating income, as well as to the company’s overall performance on annual goals related to employees, customers, partners, and stockholders. 

Many corporate governance details are found in the sustainability reports, but interested investors should also read the annual proxy statements they receive from companies they own shares of. To research corporate governance attributes (including interesting tidbits such as CEO pay) before buying a stock, you can access proxy statements on the SEC’s website by searching for the filing type DEF 14A. 

The history of ESG investing

Over the course of decades, many management teams and investors have adhered to the shareholder value theory, which was popularized in 1970 by Milton Friedman (and is also known as the Friedman Doctrine). Friedman argued that companies’ only social responsibility is to maximize shareholder value, in effect to make money for the folks holding the stock.

Proponents of shareholder value maximization put the pursuit of profit (and shareholder returns) above all other considerations. Pursuing profit isn’t inherently dangerous — after all, lack of profits can lead to a host of bad outcomes for companies including bankruptcy. But many businesses can run into serious problems if management is only concerned with maximizing short-term profit measures to please Wall Street, at the expense of all other stakeholders. Companies that chase the approval of the markets instead of building relationships with employees can end up making workers more likely to unionize or quit. And when this toxic philosophy pervades a company’s culture, it’s more likely that employees will make the poor decision to engage in dangerous, risky, or even illegal dealings to appease management’s demands for short-term profit. Ultimately, obsessing over EPS and other short-term metrics is a good way for companies to open themselves up to lawsuits, investigations, and regulations. 

Enter: Socially responsible investing (SRI), which relies on strategies that emphasize sustainable, responsible and impact investing. SRI sprung from a niche investment strategy that emerged in the 1960s and ’70s, around the same time as Friedman’s statement. Some consider the Quakers’ earlier exclusion of “sinful” companies as the significant root of this philosophy, but many other observers point to South Africa’s apartheid period as a crucial tipping point, when investors began divesting from companies that did business there based on moral and ethical grounds.

For decades, shareholder value theory has been protected by the hefty returns enjoyed by investors, but modern investors are increasingly realizing that shortchanging stakeholders to juice shareholder returns is too high a price for society to pay. A company’s stakeholders go way beyond shareholders to include its employees, customers, suppliers, distributors, communities, neighbors, and the environment. And in an ironic twist of the shareholder value theory — shoddy treatment of stakeholders presents financial risk, as shareholders have the power to damage the company by selling their shares. This collective realization helps explain why SRI and other ethically focused investing techniques have grown in popularity and coverage.

Investment strategies related to ESG 

SRI generally uses exclusionary screens, or filters, that investors can use to exclude certain companies and industries that don’t meet their particular value criteria. The SRI investor sets their screen to make an investment decision by tailoring it to their own values. For example, many SRI investors screen out tobacco, alcohol, and weapons stocks, leaving most other companies and industries eligible to select for further analysis. Others take issue with lobbying done by certain companies, and keep them out of their consideration pool for that reason. SRI investors might also screen out all companies in a particular industry except those considered “best in class.” A best-in-class investor might screen out all fossil fuel companies except those that outperform their peers in the areas of sustainability, employee treatment, and corporate governance. 

Shareholder activism is another form of SRI investing, in which investors buy shares of companies that other SRI investors find unpalatable or reprehensible, with the expressed purpose of engaging with those companies to encourage, or demand, improvement. Engagement tactics include filing shareholder proposals, attending annual meetings, and speaking directly with executives. This strategy isn’t necessarily about making money or being long-term buy-and-hold investors. Usually, these shareholders sell their shares after companies adequately engage with them on reform by addressing the targeted issues or even fully meeting their demands.

Unfortunately, not all activist investors are socially responsible. The other type of shareholder activist typically buys large stakes in companies to influence management, but they hail from the shareholder profit camp, pushing for short-term profit boosts that can damage long-term strategic initiatives. It only works because of the massive amount of money they sank into the company, so becoming an activist investor isn’t an option for most individual investors anyway. But it’s worth knowing about these deep-pocketed vultures, so you can raise a red flag if one of your investments gets targeted by one.

Impact investing is another philosophy under the SRI umbrella. Impact investors put their money in companies that have demonstrably positive environmental and social impacts, on top of positive financial returns. Impact investors have differing expectations when it comes to financial returns. While some target below-market-rate returns, others expect results that are comparable or even beat the market, according to the Global Impact Investing Network. An impact investor may make an investment where the measurable outcome relates to a highly impactful area, such as boosting sustainable agriculture. Therefore, a financial outcome that matches or beats the return of the S&P 500 isn’t what they measure to gauge success. Rather, they aim to see progress in their desired area, by tracking the indicative metrics they identified before buying the stock.

Conscious capitalism is another buzzword you’ve probably heard. It’s a business management strategy that emphasizes aligning the business with stakeholders for shared success. A company that fits within that realm not only seeks profits to benefit shareholders, but also serves other stakeholders like employees, the environment, suppliers, customers, and communities. Serving all stakeholders is thought to strengthen a business and generate long-term profitability. The focus on creating value for stakeholders puts conscious capitalism in the same philosophical category as SRI or ESG, but it’s better understood as something that should be embodied by an executive. Investors can look to conscious capitalism as a way to think about management of the companies they own, but it’s not an investing discipline per se.

How ESG investing is different

ESG is most like SRI in that it focuses on investing in publicly traded companies. However, ESG investors actively opt in to companies because of impressive environmental, social, and governance attributes they’ve demonstrated. Conversely, a traditional SRI investor focuses on excluding certain industries or companies because they have failed in certain aspects. ESG can be confusing for folks who are more familiar with the straightforward SRI approach. But just remember that with SRI, your beliefs demand you outright exclude whatever sectors you loathe, whether that’s tobacco, alcohol, weapons, gambling, or other sin stocks. ESG offers more flexibility and depth of research into the nuts, bolts, and fine details that make up a comprehensive corporate initiative and define management’s patterns.

Sometimes, ESG homes in on companies’ material issues, which depend on their industry. SASB designed a Materiality Map to illustrate what defines financially material issues — things that are “reasonably likely to impact the financial condition or operating performance of a company and therefore are most important to investors.”

An issue that’s financially material for one industry may not be material for another. It’s fabulous when companies donate money to noble causes, but charitable giving doesn’t typically impact operations beyond good PR and brand enhancement. For ESG investors, charitable giving is not usually a financially material aspect to consider. But climate change, along with its causes and effects, is a financially material issue, as global warming will substantially impact every company everywhere. Data security is of utmost importance to internet companies and retailers, but less material for infrastructure companies. SASB’s Materiality Map offers tips on how to navigate these differences.

Just because an issue isn’t financially material to a company doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter to investors. There will be occasions when a socially responsible investor will buy or sell on the grounds that it’s the right thing to do, regardless of the issue’s direct financial impact. 

ESG can yield interesting results that may not always feel comfortable, especially to traditional socially responsible investors, due to its novel combination of an inclusionary criteria and financial materiality clause.

A distasteful industry can yield a high-ESG company. For example, a defense company that specializes in missile production and scores high on environmental sustainability, employee treatment, corporate governance, and diversity may merit inclusion in an ESG fund, even though it would be a “no-fly zone” stock for a traditional SRI investor.

Some ESG investors do screen out entire industries, excluding certain companies no matter how high they rank in ESG areas. Bear in mind that throughout the financial industry, ESG is used in different ways, and there are no official standards yet. This is one reason you may occasionally see news articles arguing that some purported “socially responsible” products actually aren’t.

If you’re not a self-directed investor, it’s important to do your homework on the methods your money manager uses, and whether they screen out certain industries. Otherwise, you may find a company from an industry you don’t feel good about in your portfolio.

When rationalizing ESG investing with the greater SRI industry, it’s important to remember that ESG is also a stakeholder-centric theory, which argues how companies treat all their stakeholders will impact their long-term success or failure.

How ESG investing can reduce risk

Beyond its ability to help uncover attractive long-term investment opportunities, ESG has experienced a great deal of traction within the financial world thanks to its role in reducing risk. Stakeholder treatment issues including climate change and resource scarcity pose serious risks to all companies’ operations and profits. To see how integrating ESG can help investors mitigate risk, here are few examples of risky corporate behavior where employing ESG could have helped.

Environmental risks go further than the usual regulatory and reputational risks. Environmental challenges cause a variety of issues and global warming is on track to devastate entire economies if it’s not mitigated or reversed. Other implications of climate change are resource scarcity, more frequent natural disasters of greater magnitude, and increased global poverty, as well as political unrest, instability, and even war.

In a recent worst-case scenario, PG&E (NYSE:PCG) became the first company to suffer a hefty blow partly due to climate change-induced conditions that caused enormous wildfires. PG&E declared bankruptcy, an extreme outcome that is likely to become more common if companies don’t adequately prepare for risks related to climate change — or better yet, actively work and invest to improve the outlook of global warming. 

What about worker treatment? It stands to reason that unhappy, unhealthy, or stressed employees won’t be eager brand ambassadors, willing to provide excellent customer service, or dream up innovative new ideas for the company. They’re also more likely to quit their jobs, leading to high employee turnover that forces the company to spend more money on hiring, training, and onboarding new employees. Research shows treating employees well — and keeping them engaged with their work — helps business operations. Companies that excel at engaging their employees achieve per-share earnings growth more than four times higher than rivals, according to Gallup. Compared with the companies in the bottom quartile, those in the top quartile when it comes to engagement generate higher customer engagement, higher productivity, better retention, fewer accidents, and 21% higher profitability.

Diversity pays, too. Companies with low levels of gender, racial, and other forms of diversity across workforces, management teams, and boardrooms lose out on intellectual capital and valuable perspectives. Research shows that teams composed of the exact same types of people make worse decisions and fare worse financially, too. In 2018, McKinsey examined data from 366 public companies in the U.S., Canada, Latin America, and the U.K. and found companies in the top quartile for gender, racial, or ethnic diversity are more likely to generate financial returns above the national medians for their industry. The converse was also true. McKinsey concluded that “diversity is probably a competitive differentiator that shifts market share toward more diverse companies over time.”

High ESG, high returns

Risk reduction is important, but many more people are coming around to the notion that strong ESG traits can be viewed as indicators of companies with exemplary management teams. After all, concern about ESG factors goes hand in hand with long-term thinking, and the ability to consider far-out outcomes demonstrates a clear vision. Strategizing and planning decades in the future is a necessary shift in the business world, where too many CEOs chase short-term, quarterly profits. Thinking about how a business impacts various stakeholders requires a level of holistic, creative thinking that shouldn’t be underestimated as a competitive advantage.

Former PepsiCo (NASDAQ:PEP) CEO Indra Nooyi sagely envisioned that trends would shift to healthier offerings (and unhealthy snacks and drinks contribute to public health risks, too, a factor that would be significant to ESG investors), and so she began dedicating research and development spending to devise healthier treats that appeal to consumers. 

Integrating ESG into business operations allows executives to better manage complexity, too. Just think of how difficult it is to change the operations of a massive, legacy business — and plenty of executive management teams are doing it. In one encouraging sign, 85% of S&P 500 companies now publish detailed sustainability reports outlining their efforts, up from 20% in 2011. 

Plenty of data backs up the notion that high-ESG companies are also well-run, ultimately producing financial results comparable or superior to their low-ESG peers. Fortune cited data from asset management start-up Arabesque that found that S&P 500 companies in the top quintile in terms of ESG attributes outperformed those in the bottom quintile by more than 25 percentage points between the beginning of 2014 and the end of 2018. The high-ESG companies’ stock prices were also less volatile. 

Consider this conclusion from The Journal of Applied Corporate Finance by Dan Hanson and Rohan Dhanuka:

In recent years a wide literature of academics and practitioners has been developed which supports the proposition that high ESG characteristics are associated with lower costs of capital and higher quality profitability including high [return on invested capital]. Several meta studies illustrate the “do well by doing good” premise that corporate responsibility as proxied for by ESG is consistent with stronger firm performance. As we observe across these multiple studies, there seems to be clear evidence that companies with high non-financial indicators of quality seem to perform significantly better on market and accounting-based metrics.

Stunning growth in ESG

Ethical investing has come a long way since SRI was a small niche in the investing universe. SRI, ESG, and impact investing used to not even exist, and now they’re catching on with both financial institutions and everyday investors, all of whom are seeking to do good with their investing dollars while doing well for themselves.

According to US SIF’s 2018 Report on Sustainable, Responsible, and Impact Investing Trends, total SRI assets jumped 38% to $12 trillion since 2016 in the U.S. alone. These assets represent 26% of the total U.S. assets under management ($1 in $4). For perspective, when US SIF first measured the size of the market in 1995, it was $639 billion; the area has increased 18-fold, and has since enjoyed a compound annual growth rate of 13.6%.

There are a variety of reasons why this style of investing is becoming more mainstream. A frequently cited reason is that millennials consistently show a tendency to crave social responsibility, whether it’s in the products they purchase, the organizations they work for, or their investment portfolios.

This activist attitude has been reshaping many aspects of how business works in our society, including companies’ increasing willingness to incorporate ESG strategies into their business models and taking public stands on issues that were once considered too controversial. Why? Millennials are a massive generation, comprised of at least 71 million individuals who were born between 1981 and 1996 in America alone. Millennials represent $600 billion in annual spending in the U.S., a figure expected to grow to $1.4 trillion annually by 2020, according to Accenture.

Baby boomers — another huge demographic — are poised to pass their money down to future generations, with an unprecedented $30 trillion expected to come under new stewardship over the course of the next several decades.

Big financial institutions haven’t missed this detail about a key demographic. Morgan Stanley’s Institute for Sustainable Investing conducted many studies and surveys related to the link between millennials and sustainable investing. In 2017, its survey of active individual investors revealed that (emphasis original) “86% of Millennials are interested in sustainable investing, or investing in companies or funds that aim to generate market-rate financial returns, while pursuing positive social and/or environmental impact. Millennials are twice as likely as the overall investor population to invest in companies targeting social or environmental goals. And 90% of them say they want sustainable investing as an option within their 401(k) plans.” Bank of America Merrill Lynch predicted that in the next 20 to 30 years, millennials could pour between $15 trillion and $20 trillion into ESG investments in the U.S.

Risks of ESG investing

Every investing strategy has risks, and ESG is no different. Let’s go through a few potential pitfalls of this approach and how you can avoid them.

One of the major ongoing risks is the lack of standards in the fledgling industry. While this opens the playing field for many interesting approaches to doing good while generating a solid investment performance, it also increases the possibility that some ESG investment firms will exploit this area for marketing, rather than employing disciplined ESG investment strategies.

The growing ranks of ESG investors as well as huge financial institutions moving into the ESG arena is a validating sign. There’s added potential for better data on ESG performance, but that data may show that individual ESG investors aren’t the rockstars we’d hoped them to be over the long term. Headlines from new research studying more ESG investors may tout that “ESG doesn’t work” — which may be true, for some investors. After all, not everyone is a great analyst or stock picker (across all investments, not just ESG). Fortunately, younger people don’t mind underperformance to the same degree as older folks. Surveys of millennials consistently show they accept lower performance in order to invest in highly sustainable companies. So even if millennials underperform, they’re sleeping better at night.

Younger people are moving into investment firms to perform research and analysis, and it’s reasonable to assume many will hone in on ESG. Most millennials have yet to weather a major economic downturn before and so their investment strategy remains untested. In the event that we see a recession, ESG-related sectors could take a significant hit — especially if younger investors bail on their ESG investment theses under pressure.

Another risk is if companies were to abandon their attempts to become more stakeholder-centric, and stop reporting sustainability data. Any broader move away from enhancing ESG attributes would make it hard for ESG investors to find high ESG companies to invest in. 

Is ESG right for you?

Hopefully ESG investing has been somewhat demystified for you now — or, if you were already aware of it, perhaps your enthusiasm for the investing philosophy has been stoked further or renewed. If you’re attracted to socially responsible investing, and you want your portfolio to outperform the broader market, ESG investing could be a great match for you. 

Read the original article

Human Rights and Worker Equity Grow More Influential in U.S. Consumer Purchasing Decisions – Business Wire

NEW YORK–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Public sentiment has intensified about the ways businesses can take purposeful action in helping people, communities and the environment to thrive, according to the 10th annual Sense & Sustainability Study, released today by G&S Business Communications (G&S). The opinion poll was conducted online by YouGov Plc for G&S in August 2019 among 1,330 U.S. adults. Key findings include:

  • There are sharp increases in consumers’ likelihood to purchase from companies whose suppliers comply with human rights or compensation laws (76%, up from 68% in 2018) and businesses offering fair wages to retain top employees (74%, up from 68% in 2018).
  • Most Americans view the creation of local jobs (55%) and conservation of natural resources (52%) as helpful in forming a positive business reputation for social and environmental responsibility.
  • In ranking certain groups for their roles in protecting society and nature throughout the supply chain, Americans assign the greatest responsibility to the general public (52%). The government is the second-most frequently cited, but at a significantly lower rate than last year (49%, down from 55% in 2018).
  • Six in 10 believe bad news tends to dim good news in green business coverage. Strikingly, more than half of survey takers (59%) are either unsure of corporate efforts to share news about improving the environment and society, or believe that companies are doing a poor job communicating it.

“People are voicing a desire to end the numbing grind of thoughts, prayers and partisan bickering driving today’s conversations about our environment, communities and households,” said Ron Loch, G&S managing director and sustainability consulting leader. “Instead of allowing misguided actors to exploit a gap in knowledge, communicators can re-energize public discourse to become more purposeful. Business communicators know how to link evidence with empathy to turn data about corporate social responsibility into meaningful stories of human connectedness, innovation and action.”

“Based on our decade-long G&S research, the narrative arc for the corporate responsibility movement has shifted from doing good on a global scale to working ambitiously at the human scale,” said Mary C. Buhay, G&S senior vice president, marketing, and lead author of the Sense & Sustainability Study. “We are seeing the public’s growing sense of accountability and agency about their own impact on nature and society, which includes their beliefs about human-caused climate change and their choices as consumers, employees, investors and private citizens. As people look for tangible, incremental results, there is a clear opportunity for businesses and their leaders to step up and demonstrate they are behaving ethically, operating responsibly and offering workable answers.”

For the 10th edition of the Sense & Sustainability Study, G&S selected two industries—healthcare, and home and building—as focal points to gauge U.S. attitudes about the benefits of sustainability practices and green products, for both individuals and communities.

Healthcare or Health Technologies

In considering healthcare industry solutions with sustainability benefits for both communities and their own households, Americans are more likely to recognize the greater good.

  • Many Americans say healthtech solutions that eliminate travel, which also reduce fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, benefit both their daily lives and their communities (both at 38%). Nutrition and wellness education about diets consisting of low carbon-impact ingredients has a similarly positive effect, both on a personal level (40%) and at the community level (39%).
  • U.S. adults see healthcare institutions that adopt eco-friendly practices as having a more favorable impact on their local communities (45%) versus their daily lives (39%).
  • More choose none of the options offered for health-focused solutions when thinking about the positive difference made in their daily lives (26%) as opposed to local communities (22%), revealing a potential opportunity for the healthcare industry to provide more education about its green practices.
  • Fifty-eight percent believe the news media is inclined to report bad news more than good news in green business coverage about healthcare companies. However, most (60%) are either unsure of the industry’s own communications about best sustainability practices, or believe it does not do a good job communicating them.

Home and Building Solutions

Home and building solutions that address environmental protection and climate resilience represent distinct benefits for Americans in their personal lives, communities or both.

  • Renewable energy, such as solar power, is a home and building technology seen as dually improving daily lives (40%) and local communities (39%).
  • Americans say energy-efficient appliances have a more positive effect on their households (47%) in comparison to their community (31%).
  • When considering waste management systems that safely dispose of materials, including bio-waste and recyclables, more recognize the favorable impact on their neighborhoods (50%) versus their own lives (39%).
  • Fifty-seven percent believe there is a tendency to report bad news more than good news in green business coverage about home and building companies. However, most (59%) are either unsure of the industry’s efforts to communicate its own responsible and ethical actions, or view its communications as lacking.

To obtain a report with details of the 2019 G&S Sense & Sustainability® Study, along with a 10th edition infographic that highlights key findings from the study’s history, please visit the company’s website.

G&S is a global business communications firm with expertise in corporate social responsibility (CSR), sustainability, and environmental, social and governance (ESG) impact for clients in key markets: Advanced manufacturing and energy, agribusiness and food, clean technology, emerging technology ventures, financial and professional services, healthcare, home and building solutions, and nutrition and wellness. G&S was honored as the B2B/Corporate Agency of the Year by the Holmes Report and named multiple times to the CSR Agency A-List by PR News.

About G&S Business Communications

G&S Business Communications is an independent, fully integrated marketing and public relations firm with headquarters in New York and offices in Chicago, Raleigh, N.C., and Basel, Switzerland. The firm’s global network extends across more than 50 countries through its PROI Worldwide partnership. G&S integrates business and communications strategies, using a full range of communications services, to build sustainable relationships for clients along the entire value chain. We inspire action that drives results. For more information, please visit www.gscommunications.com.

About the G&S Sense & Sustainability® Study

The 2019 G&S Sense & Sustainability Study is the firm’s tenth annual survey of U.S. adults about business efforts to improve society and the environment through sustainable practices, products, or services. The survey was fielded online on behalf of G&S by YouGov Plc between August 5 and 6, 2019 among 1,330 U.S. adults ages 18 and older. All figures are weighted and are representative of all U.S. adults ages 18 and older. For more information about Sense & Sustainability studies published from 2010-2018, please visit the company website.

No estimate of theoretical sampling error can be calculated. For complete survey methodology, including weighting variables, please contact Mary C. Buhay.

Read the original article

Mitsubishi Electric Named Again as FTSE4Good Index Series Constituent – Business Wire

TOKYO–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (TOKYO:6503) announced today that it has been named for the third consecutive year as a constituent of the FTSE4Good Index Series and the FTSE Blossom Japan Index.

Created by FTSE Russell, a global index and data provider, the FTSE4Good Index Series and the FTSE Blossom Japan Index help to measure how well companies implement strong environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices. The FTSE4Good Index Series and the FTSE Blossom Japan Index are used widely to create and assess responsible investment funds and other products.

Mitsubishi Electric, which is committed to achieving the United Nations’ sustainable development goals (SDGs), creates value by simultaneously pursuing sustainability and safety, security and comfort, as expressed in the company’s corporate statement, Changes for the Better.

About Mitsubishi Electric Corporation

With nearly 100 years of experience in providing reliable, high-quality products, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (TOKYO:6503) is a recognized world leader in the manufacture, marketing and sales of electrical and electronic equipment used in information processing and communications, space development and satellite communications, consumer electronics, industrial technology, energy, transportation and building equipment. Embracing the spirit of its corporate statement, Changes for the Better, and its environmental statement, Eco Changes, Mitsubishi Electric endeavors to be a global, leading green company, enriching society with technology. The company recorded a revenue of 4,519.9 billion yen (US$ 40.7 billion*) in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2019. For more information visit:
www.MitsubishiElectric.com
*At an exchange rate of 111 yen to the US dollar, the rate given by the Tokyo Foreign Exchange Market on March 31, 2019

Read the original article