Robeco, The Investments Engineers
blue circle

09-12-2024 · インサイト

Moving the needle? Six insights into SDG investing

The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals have taken sustainable investing to the next level – but do they always add value that could not be found elsewhere? Robeco recently updated its ground-breaking SDG Framework with new research that answers this question.

    執筆者

  • Jan Anton van Zanten - SDGストラテジスト

    Jan Anton van Zanten

    SDGストラテジスト

まとめ

  1. SDG scores are better at gauging impact than traditional ESG research

  2. It doesn’t cost returns and doesn’t have the biases of size or location

  3. SDG alignment can help avoid future scandals as well as decarbonizing portfolios

The Framework, launched in 2017, is a robust tool that systematically assesses individual companies on their contributions to key targets for the 17 SDGs. These contributions are aggregated into an SDG score, which can be used to construct portfolios that pursue positive impact, avoid negative impact, and support sustainable progress in the economy, society and the natural environment.

Over the years, we have built a strong track record of integrating SDG scores in our investment portfolios, with our dedicated SDG solutions on average nearly doubling in assets under management between 2018 and 2023. For Robeco, SDG investing is no longer a niche practice; ultimately, our goal is to make it the new norm for sustainable investing.

However, investors still ask questions about issues ranging from whether SDG scores do better than ESG analysis or mean lower returns, to whether they have their own biases, or do anything to further the pursuit of net-zero goals. Here we offer six key takeaways from the research conducted for the revised SDG Framework published in September 2024.

1. SDG Framework vs traditional ESG scoring

It’s important to know whether the SDG Framework works better in capturing companies’ impact on sustainable development than traditional environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics which can look at similar variables. So, we tested them.1

We found that companies that are on asset owners’ exclusion lists, those that breach the EU Taxonomy’s do-no-significant-harm (DNSH) principle, and companies that are among the 100 highest carbon emitters predominantly get negative SDG scores. Conversely, the majority of companies that have significant Taxonomy-aligned revenues or provide solutions in the field of health and well-being, water and sanitation, or sustainable energy, are assigned positive SDG scores.

Meanwhile, none of the ESG ratings studied were found to align with the sustainability preferences of investors, regulators and scientists. ESG ratings are simply not suited to differentiate between companies with positive and negative impacts. This confirms the validity of our SDG scores in capturing real-world impact.

2. The SDG lens does not compromise returns in the long run

An often-heard concern is that sustainable investing leads to lower returns and less diversification in portfolios. We investigated this notion by running a historical simulation between two portfolios: one that avoids stocks with negative SDG scores and one that is unconstrained.

The findings show that the positive SDG investment approach did not lead to lower returns compared to the market index. In addition, the two portfolios showed highly similar risk levels and the diversification benefits were virtually identical. This suggests that investors can utilize an SDG lens without compromising their financial objectives.

The efficient frontier: return, risk and diversification characteristics are virtually identical for all three passive solutions.

The efficient frontier: return, risk and diversification characteristics are virtually identical for all three passive solutions.

Source: FTSE, MSCI, Robeco

3. Higher scoring companies face fewer scandals

Scandals can lead to loss of stakeholder confidence and may have long-term reputational or financial consequences for companies. A research collaboration between Robeco and the University of Zurich led to a recent article titled ‘Corporate Sustainability and Scandals’, which examined the link between our SDG scores and involvement in future controversies.2

It found that companies with higher SDG scores have a lower probability of being involved in scandals, and if they do become embroiled in one, these are less severe and cover fewer contentious topics. This suggests that our SDG score is a useful tool for sustainability-minded investors who want to avoid negative financial implications stemming from corporate scandals.

4. SDG scores do not exhibit size, location or reporting biases

A criticism of ESG ratings is that companies that are larger in size, are from developed countries, or have more resources for providing sustainability disclosures are assigned better ratings. Our SDG scores were academically tested on whether they exhibit similar biases in a recent paper entitled ‘Sustainability Matters: Company SDG Scores Need Not Have Size, Location, and ESG Disclosure Biases’.3

The findings suggest that this is not the case, meaning SDG-aligned investment portfolios avoid undesirable biases stemming from the way our SDG scores are constructed. This is an important finding considering that investors have more potential to create positive impact by investing in companies that face capital constraints, a situation more common among smaller companies and those operating in emerging markets.

5. The SDGs can form the third dimension of 3D investing

Robeco has long practiced 3D investing, combining the assessment of risk, return, and sustainability as the third dimension. The value added by sustainability was examined in a paper entitled ‘3D Investing: Jointly optimizing return, risk and sustainability’, which used the Robeco SDG scores as the third dimension rather than traditional ESG metrics.4

It found that 3D investing yields higher sustainability metrics and expected returns compared to a 2D model with constraints, such as the use of basic exclusions. A combined strategy, blending a flexible sustainability constraint with integrating sustainability into the optimization process, offers a balance between return, risk and sustainability goals.

6. Integrating the SDGs helps decarbonize portfolios

Finally, a massive challenge – and opportunity – in sustainable investing today lies in the transition to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. Of the 100 companies with the highest greenhouse gas emissions in the MSCI World Index, 63 have a negative SDG score. Furthermore, the 27% of MSCI companies with a negative SDG score are responsible for 72% of all emissions.

Conversely, the 53% of companies with a positive SDG score account for only 21% of the index's emissions. Thus, by increasingly avoiding negative scoring companies, investors will indirectly reduce exposure to high emitting firms, and thereby align with decarbonization objectives. The figure below shows these results.

The SDG scores of top-100 highest emitting MSCI AC World companies (Scope 1 and 2)

The SDG scores of top-100 highest emitting MSCI AC World companies (Scope 1 and 2)

Source: Robeco, MSCI.

Yes, it works

In summary, we can show that using the SDG Framework in portfolio construction significantly helps toward achieving the SDGs, does not compromise returns, and can help with climate change. Robeco subsequently remains committed to using the Framework not just for SDG investing, but as a metric across its entire range of fundamental equity, fixed income, quant and bespoke sustainability strategies.

And it is an ongoing process at Robeco. As the ‘Investment Engineers’, we continually develop our intellectual property, test it scientifically internally and against academic research, and then customize it for use in investment products.

Read the full update to the SDG Framework


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。

登録 はこちら

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