You began your career in traditional finance. What triggered your interest in sustainable investing and finance?
“It began back in the early 2000s while I was a professor of finance at Maastricht University in the Netherlands. At the time, I was also working as an external advisor to the Dutch pension fund ABP and other members of the investment community. One of the issues that kept surfacing was the potential for applying environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors to investments. These issues drove me and fellow colleagues at Maastricht to study their impact at the portfolio level. We found that there was no real difference between the risk/return characteristics of conventional investments and those of sustainable portfolios.”1
“This was a really significant finding because, at that time, most academics and investors believed that ESG would introduce a new portfolio constraint that would limit the investment universe and ultimately a portfolio’s return potential. Our findings to the contrary triggered a lot of attention from institutional investors, think tanks, governments and other institutions, which led to many projects and collaborations on sustainable finance and development in the years that followed.”
What are you currently working on?
“I continue to do research in both traditional as well as sustainable finance topics; more specifically on examining the evidence of sustainable investing’s impact from real-world applications. I’m an academic who appreciates theory and models, but I’m also practical and want to see how things play out in reality. Right now, I’m focused on studying how deliberate choices made by investors can change company actions and limit such things as carbon emissions and climate change.”
“Together with others, I’ve helped launch two separate companies, Global Property Research (GPR) and Finance Ideas, which are focused on applied research. An offshoot of Finance Ideas is the independent Global Real Estate Engagement Network (GREEN) – an alliance of prominent asset owners and investment managers, including Robeco, who are devoted to incorporating ESG criteria into real estate and infrastructure investments. It provides a forum for things such as sharing and comparing building emissions data across developers globally to support recommendations that help improve building design and renovations.”
How is your current research informing and advancing sustainable investing?
“Some of the major questions that researchers are currently asking is whether all these sustainability criteria are having an effect on portfolios or real-world outcomes? Are we measuring something that is real, or is it greenwashing? One funny thing I’ve observed is how the sustainable investing market has changed after ESG and the EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) moved in. I am currently working on what the classification of investment products according to their level of embedded sustainability did for market players. Sometimes the press reads it negatively, but I found that investors have used ESG positively in ways that can be measured, such as through fees, performance and behavior. We have not found any tangible evidence of greenwashing.”
“In terms of impact, the key question is whether you can capture it in a proper way while also getting good risk-adjusted returns. I think the SDGs provide a valid, reliable way of working towards that impact question for investment portfolios. This is certainly the case when you have a physical asset like a building or infrastructure from which you can concretely measure the emissions and effects.”
Was it discouraging to not find a performance difference between conventional portfolios and those incorporating ESG?
“No, not at all. The prior thinking in finance was that limiting your choice worsens your risk/return trade-off. And everyone thought that integrating ESG factors would limit your choice, reduce your diversification and lower your expected returns. But we found that limiting the number of stocks as a result of incorporating ESG didn’t really produce a big change in risk/return outcomes compared to traditional portfolios.”
“That’s a good thing because it shows that a portfolio’s risk/return profile – which is crucial for investments – is definitely not deteriorating by incorporating ESG. At the same time, you are allowing your product to become more focused and aligned with investor values, priorities or beliefs. We often think that market efficiency means that markets will take care of everything, but this is not the case. You need to maintain your own thesis, your own focus, your own ideals. The market won’t do that for you.”
“Moreover, sustainable investing realigns society and investing, which until now have been moving along different trajectories. If investors want to invest in firms with less of an environmental footprint, or which are aligned with the SDGs, they can without hurting returns.”
Aren’t asset managers still trying to find an alpha effect (beating the benchmark) from ESG?
“It is very difficult to have continuous and enduring alpha from the same sustainability factors over the long run. At the beginning with the launch of a new sustainable product, you may be able to capture some alpha for a short time, maybe three to four years, because alpha from sustainability does exist. But you must be vigilant because markets are super-efficient. We saw that in our research even as far back as the early 2000s with governance characteristics already being well incorporated into stock prices. This was followed by the ‘E’ and then the ‘S’ factors.”
“Datasets are being updated all the time, and market participants are watching closely and learning quickly. All of this information is being integrated into stock prices. Beyond alpha generation, sustainable products should have other attributes that are important for investors, such as greater value alignment. Sustainable products shouldn’t be bought or sold based solely on the need for alpha generation.”
The SFDR emphasizes the concept of double materiality – the impact that a company has on the world as well as the impact the world has on the company. What’s your view on the SFDR’s impact on investments?
“I’m positive on the SFDR’s effects. I think it’s great that Europe is taking the early initiative and the lead on this. It really focuses the attention of investors toward more societal and environmental goals. On the negative side, you could argue that it will create a lot of bureaucracy; but on the positive side it provides a competitive edge. It should push investors to rethink and realign their portfolios.”
“I can already see that its moving things positively forward. I sit on a lot of investment advisory boards and even as of two years ago, no one was paying attention to it. However, now they are diving deep, rethinking what they are doing and asking their members and stakeholders what their preferences are.”
Company executives, government leaders, the investment community, even celebrities, are talking about the SDGs. How do you explain their popularity?
“Everyone was looking for a common language and the SDGs provided that. Climate change has shown that we can no longer deny the negative impacts of business activities. Business, governments and investors have to confront these real-world issues because they are not going away. The SDGs are 17 goals that capture and prioritize sizable sustainable challenges that, like climate change, represent a risk to global business.”
“Another attractive aspect is that they were standardized right from the start and are relatively straightforward in terms of their intended goals and metrics to measure progress. That has helped companies, investors and a broad community of stakeholders to put them to use in measuring, managing and reporting on their impact.”
“But the idea and momentum behind considering real-world impact in investments has been building for a long time, it just wasn’t visible. What we are witnessing now is really the tip of the iceberg. Underneath, there is more than two-decades’ worth of work from academics, members of the investment community and other stakeholders. Moreover, climate has also been a big force for change. It’s a sustainability challenge that has evolved into an inexorable global crisis that business, governments, consumers and investors are being forced to confront. That’s increased the focus on what might be the next ‘in-your-face’ sustainability challenge with global ramifications.”
最新のインサイトを受け取る
投資に関する最新情報や専門家の分析を盛り込んだニュースレター（英文）を定期的にお届けします。
When it comes to the SDGs, are company data and disclosures adequate to measure impact?
“There are many companies that are intentionally making specific choices about their impact. Unilever is a great example. It focuses a lot on creating what we call ‘shared value’ among stakeholders. They’ve looked closely at what they are producing and where those things bring positive benefits but also negative effects across their supply chains. They’ve mapped out what they can cut out of the process and what steps it takes to do it. This kind of shared-value creation and the competitive advantages it creates is really gaining momentum among companies championed by business school academics like Porter and Kramer out of Harvard.2 It is a whole new way of looking at your business that many companies are actually undertaking.”
“We are only at the starting phase and we are also seeing pushback. In the US, many argue that a company’s main purpose is to generate shareholder profits. But I think ‘shared-value creation’ should be part of a company’s mission and so measuring impact is going to stay with us.”
How is SDG measurement different from ESG integration? What does one measure that the other doesn’t?
“I like the SDGs because they are standardized, forward-looking and focused concretely on specific societal challenges. ESG, on the other hand, tends to be non-standard, backward-looking and much too fuzzy and qualitative. To be honest, as an academic, I would say the jury is still out. The advantage of the SDGs is that there are standardized and a globally accepted framework. The financial world has accepted and adopted them much like the real world. Part of that acceptance comes from its use of simple metrics laid out in straightforward language that resonates with businesses.”
Can the SDGs be used to generate alpha? Is this an appropriate expectation of investors?
“Like any innovation, there is the possibility to generate alpha, for sure. But that shouldn’t be the product’s prime selling point. Managers shouldn’t forget what they are up against – a highly efficient and adaptive investor market. Any price effects from SDG information could be mitigated very quickly as most investors are moving in the same direction. I think it’s much more important to focus on value alignment and the impact goals. The finance industry has for too long neglected the societal and environmental effects of companies; the SDGs are a tool to help us get back on track.”
Isn’t there room for companies to misuse the SDGs, to pick and choose only what they want to disclose?
“Some will certainly do that, but that shouldn’t stop us from continuing to measure and advocate for company disclosure. We need to take a long-term perspective and realize that this is an enormous challenge for companies that has come to the fore only in the past three to five years. Prior to that, while researchers were interested in studying impact, there was no real push for companies to measure, monitor and disclose anything.”
“It’s now out there, and companies have grasped the importance of the SDGs for their customers, suppliers, investors and regulators. With so many onlookers, companies realize the need to be clear and transparent. That’s why I like Robeco’s SI Open Access initiative; it gets company results out in the open. With time, I am optimistic that companies will get better at measuring and reporting their outcomes.”
Footnotes
1 Bauer, Rob, Kees Koedijk, and Rogér Otten. 2005. “International Evidence on Ethical Mutual Fund Performance and Investment Style.” Journal of Banking and Finance 29 (7): 1751–1767. doi:10. 1016/j.jbankfin.2004.06.035.
2 Kramer, M. R., & Porter, M. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62-77.
重要事項
当資料は情報提供を目的として、Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V.が作成した英文資料、もしくはその英文資料をロベコ・ジャパン株式会社が翻訳したものです。資料中の個別の金融商品の売買の勧誘や推奨等を目的とするものではありません。記載された情報は十分信頼できるものであると考えておりますが、その正確性、完全性を保証するものではありません。意見や見通しはあくまで作成日における弊社の判断に基づくものであり、今後予告なしに変更されることがあります。運用状況、市場動向、意見等は、過去の一時点あるいは過去の一定期間についてのものであり、過去の実績は将来の運用成果を保証または示唆するものではありません。また、記載された投資方針・戦略等は全ての投資家の皆様に適合するとは限りません。当資料は法律、税務、会計面での助言の提供を意図するものではありません。 ご契約に際しては、必要に応じ専門家にご相談の上、最終的なご判断はお客様ご自身でなさるようお願い致します。 運用を行う資産の評価額は、組入有価証券等の価格、金融市場の相場や金利等の変動、及び組入有価証券の発行体の財務状況による信用力等の影響を受けて変動します。また、外貨建資産に投資する場合は為替変動の影響も受けます。運用によって生じた損益は、全て投資家の皆様に帰属します。したがって投資元本や一定の運用成果が保証されているものではなく、投資元本を上回る損失を被ることがあります。弊社が行う金融商品取引業に係る手数料または報酬は、締結される契約の種類や契約資産額により異なるため、当資料において記載せず別途ご提示させて頂く場合があります。具体的な手数料または報酬の金額・計算方法につきましては弊社担当者へお問合せください。 当資料及び記載されている情報、商品に関する権利は弊社に帰属します。したがって、弊社の書面による同意なくしてその全部もしくは一部を複製またはその他の方法で配布することはご遠慮ください。 商号等： ロベコ・ジャパン株式会社 金融商品取引業者 関東財務局長（金商）第２７８０号 加入協会： 一般社団法人 日本投資顧問業協会
