Archiv der Kategorie: Governance

Green impact greenwashing illustration

Green impact? Researchpost 205

Green impact: 9x new research on the end of oil, biodiversity stress and neighbor risks, high greenwashing costs, bad climate solution returns, green patent disappointments, venture impact and there is no passive investing (# shows the number of SSRN full paper downloads as of Dec. 5th, 2024)

Nachhaltigkeits- und Investmentforschung aus Impact Investing Insights 2024 von Dirk Söhnholz vom 3. Dezember 2024: „In diesem Beitrag geht es vor allem um die Frage, wie man neue wissenschaftliche Forschung findet, die für die eigene Geldanlage relevant sein kann. Der Fokus liegt dabei auf nachhaltigkeitsbezogenem Research … wer sich nicht auf meine (Sö: Research-=Posts verlassen möchte, kann mit Hilfe dieses Beitrags selbst für sich relevante wissenschaftlich Forschung finden. Damit gibt es keine guten Ausreden mehr, wissenschaftliches Research zu vernachlässigen“ (S. 12/13).

Social and Ecological Research

Winning green paradox? The End of Oil by Ryan Kellogg as of Dec. 2nd, 2024 (#12): “It is now plausible to envision scenarios in which global demand for crude oil falls to essentially zero by the end of this century, driven by improvements in clean energy technologies, adoption of stringent climate policies, or both. This paper asks what such a demand decline, when anticipated, might mean for global oil supply. One possibility is the well-known “green paradox”: because oil is an exhaustible resource, producers may accelerate near-term extraction in order to beat the demand decline. This reaction would increase near-term CO2 emissions and could possibly even lead the total present value of climate damages to be greater than if demand had not declined at all. However, because oil extraction requires potentially long-lived investments in wells and other infrastructure, the opposite may occur: an anticipated demand decline reduces producers‘ investment rates, decreasing near-term oil production and CO2 emissions. … I develop a tractable model of global oil supply that incorporates both effects … I find that for model inputs with the strongest empirical support, the disinvestment effect outweighs the traditional green paradox. In order for anticipation effects on net to substantially increase cumulative global oil extraction, I find that industry investments must have short time horizons, and that producers must have discount rates that are comparable to U.S. treasury bill rates” (abstract).

ESG investment research (in: Green impact)

Low biodiversity risk? A Biodiversity Stress Test of the Financial System by Sophia Arlt, Tobias Berg, Xander Hut and Daniel Streitz as of Dec. 3rd, 2024 (#25): “Our study provides a comprehensive assessment of the European financial system’s exposure to biodiversity-related transition risk, alongside a comparative analysis with climate-related transition risk. … we find that while a non-negligible share of bank credit is linked to industries exposed to biodiversity transition risk (approximately 15% of total credit to non-financial firms), the overall financial system impact appears moderate. The bottom-up stress test indicates that even under severe stress scenarios, the additional losses from biodiversity risks are estimated at only 0.3 to 0.5% of the total non-financial corporate loan portfolio. … the capital shortfall associated with a severe shock to the biodiversity risk factor would only amount to about 0.5% of banks’ market capitalization“ (p. 23).

High biodiversity risk? Double Materiality of Biodiversity-related Risks: From Direct to Supply Chain Portfolio Assessment by Anthony Schrapffer, Jaime Andres Riano Sanchez,  and Julia Bres as of Dec. 3rd, 2024 (#32):“42.7% (resp. 31.4%) of a portfolio based on the Stoxx 600 has a strong or very strong direct (resp. indirect) dependency on biodiversity and that 59.9% (resp. 44.64%) has a strong or very strong direct (resp. indirect) impact on biodiversity. … The integrated oil and gas, clothing and electricity sectors are particularly sensitive as they have both a very high dependency and a very high negative impact on biodiversity“ (abstract).

Dangerous neighbors? Proximity Peril: The Effects of Neighboring Firms’ Biodiversity Risk on Firm Value by Chenhao Guo and Rui Zhong as of Nov. 13th, 2024 (#56): “Since geographically proximate firms operate in local biosphere and rely on common ecosystem services, a focal firm value might be affected by proximate firms’ biodiversity risk. … We find that one standard-deviation increase in neighboring firm’s biodiversity risk measure is associated with about 3.78% decline in the corresponding focal firm’s value on average. Using the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010 as an exogenous shock, we establish a causal relationship. … we find that proximate firm’s biodiversity risk leads to significant declines in sector-wide and long-run value components. Further analysis shows that the negative effects are more pronounced in industries with high biodiversity risk or when firms are connected through supply chains …” (abstract).

High cleanwashing costs: Greenwashing: Measurement and Implications by Qiyang He, Ben R. Marshall, Justin Hung Nguyen, Nhut H. Nguyen, Buhui Qiu, and Nuttawat Visaltanachoti as of Dec. 3rd, 2024 (#102): “This study employs earnings conference call transcripts and a specialized machine learning model, FinBERT, to measure greenwashing intensity for a broad sample of U.S. public-listed firms spanning the 2007-2021 sample period. … First, we observe that the economy-wide aggregate GW measure markedly increased after the 2015 Paris Agreement. Second, we find that the utility industry has the highest level of GW intensity among all industries. Third, we … find that relative to other firms, firms in the fossil fuel industry or the broader stranded asset industries, experienced a significant increase in greenwashing intensity after the Paris Agreement. Fourth, we find that firms with higher greenwashing intensity incur a greater amount of future environmental incidents, experience a higher amount of future EPA enforcement actions, and have higher future carbon emissions. Fifth, despite their higher likelihood of experiencing future environmental incidents and EPA enforcement, we find no evidence that GW firms produce more green innovation than other firms. … Our findings indicate that GW is associated with lower cumulative abnormal stock returns after earnings conference calls and predicts poorer future corporate operating performance. … we … document that firms with greater GW intensity tend to receive higher future environmental ratings from different rating companies. … after the Paris Accord, there is a positive relation between GW and top executives’ future job security. … greenwashing firms are more likely to link their CEO pay with corporate environmental performance in their compensation contracts. These findings suggest an agency explanation for greenwashing: managers engage in greenwashing to increase their job security and compensation, at the expense of shareholders and other stakeholders“ (p. 37/38). My comment: With my focus on high SDG-aligned revenues, high best-in-class instead of best-in-universe E, S an G Scores and my engagement focus on the CEO to average employee pay ration instead of the introduction of ESG-linked compensation I think that I am rather well protected against greenwashing of my portfolio companies.

SDG investment research

Climate hedges: Climate Solutions, Transition Risk, and Stock Returns by Shirley Lu, Edward J. Riedl, Simon Xu, and George Serafeim as of Nov. 21st, 2024 (#112): “A long-short portfolio constructed from firms with high versus low climate solutions within an industry group generates an average excess return of-5.37% per year from 2005 to 2023” (p. 34). … “… we find that high-climate solution firms exhibit lower stock returns and higher market valuation multiples. Their stock prices respond positively to events signaling increased demand for climate solutions. These firms also show higher future profitability during periods of regulatory uncertainty, unexpected increases in climate concerns, and when a larger share of their sales occurs in states with climate plans and stronger public support for addressing climate change. Overall, our results indicate that high-climate solution firms, whose business benefits as climate transition risks materialize, hedge investors against such risks”. My comment: Maybe it is good, that most investors cannot go short climate stocks. And remember: Past returns may not be a good indicator of future returns. My experience with climate-solution investments is rather positive.

No patent green impact? Green Innovations – Do patents pay off for the environment or for the investors? by Malte Schlosser, Ester Trutwin and Thorsten Hens as of Feb. 28th, 2024 (#271): “An examination of WIPO (Sö: World Intellectual Property Organization) patent data in conjunction with MSCI data reveals that companies with relatively more new green patents are those with less carbon emissions … Our analysis indicates that the firm’s green patent ratio does not contribute to an improved ESG score. However, we find evidence that the number of green patents within the last 240 months results in a better E, and industry adjusted ESG score. … While all patent strategies are underperforming the market, they tend to outperform or produce similar returns compared to the environmental and ESG strategies“ (p. 24/25).

Venture capital green impact? Impact Investment Funds by Alan S. Gutterman as of Sept. 16th, 2024 (#37): “This Work begins with an overview of the “impact startup” financial market .. The Work then dives into the practical “nuts and bolts” of practicing impact venture capital including the structure of impact investment funds and the steps that fund managers need to take to effectively “organize for impact” and the fundraising process for capitalizing the fund including due diligence, preparation and use of offering documents and negotiation of terms of the fund’s limited partnership or operating agreement. … The Work closes with a review of some of the challenges that must be overcome for the impact venture capital sector to fulfill its promise as important contributor to developing and implementing innovative and financially viable solutions to achieve society’s aspirations for sustainable development and progress” (p. 1).

Other investment research (in: Green impact)

No passive investing? Casting a Wide Net: Why True Passive Strategies Are Rare Catches by Alejandro Gaba, Jennifer Bender, Yvette Murphy, and John Tucker State Street Global Advisors from State Street Global Advisors as of Sept. 23rd, 2024 (#67): “With the rapid expansion of index funds, including smart beta and factor portfolios, what is active versus what is passive has become difficult to discern. Here we argue that only the theoretical market portfolio is “purely” passive and in practice only index portfolios that track broad market cap weighted indices (“passive-adjacent”) can be viewed as passive investing. Everything else is active. However, everything that is active lies on a spectrum and can be evaluated based on a framework we call “Conceptual Activeness.” We discuss three key parts of Conceptual Activeness – Simplicity, Transparency, and Acceptance …”. My comment: I miss a discussion of Multi-Asset Portfolios which are even less passive than equity portfolios, see Multi-Asset Benchmarks: Gibts nicht, will keiner. Oder doch? – Responsible Investment Research Blog. All my portfolios are rather simple, transparent but – unfortunately – not widely accepted (see Das-Soehnholz-ESG-und-SDG-Portfoliobuch.pdf).

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Werbung (in: Green impact)

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in den von mir beratenen globalen Small-Cap-Investmentfonds (siehe FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R – DE000A2P37T6 – A2P37T) investieren und/oder ihn empfehlen. Der Fonds konzentriert sich auf die UN-Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung mit durchschnittlich außerordentlich hohen 95% SDG-vereinbaren Umsätzen der Portfoliounternehmen und verwendet separate E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Mindestratings sowie Aktionärsengagement bei derzeit 29 von 30 Unternehmen (siehe auch My fund).

Bluewashing: Picture from pasja1000 from Pixabay

Bluewashing, bad good ESG and more: Researchpost 199

Bluewashing illustration by from Pasja1000 from Pixabay

16x new research on Chinese cars, carbon market criticism, 9-Euro ticket pollution effects, biodiversity reporting, government bond climate costs, high ESG score greenwashing, ESG performance claim risks, ESG AI and Climate AI tools, circular economy strategies, investor GHG impact, brown stock risks, anti-climate lobbying benefits, and profitable employee ESG satisfaction (#shows the number of SSRN full paper downloads as of Oct. 24th, 2024)

Social and ecological research

Low Chinese auto threat: Europe’s Shift to EVs Amid Intensifying Global Competition by Philippe Wingender, Jiaxiong Yao, Robert Zymek, Benjamin Carton, Diego Cerdeiro, and Anke Weber from the Intenrational Monetary Fund as of Oct. 16th, 2024 (#24): “European countries have set ambitious goals to reduce their carbon emissions. These goals include a transition to electric vehicles (EVs)—a sector that China increasingly dominates globally… we analyze a scenario in which the share of Chinese cars in EU purchases rises by 15 percent over 5 years … We find that for the EU as a whole, the GDP cost of this shift is small in the short term, in the range of 0.2-0.3 percent of GDP, and close to zero over the long term. Adverse short-run effects are more significant for smaller economies heavily reliant on the car sector, mainly in Central Europe. Protectionist policies, such as tariffs on Chinese EVs, would raise the GDP cost of the EV transition. A further increase in Chinese FDI inflows that results in a significant share of Chinese EVs being produced in Central European economies, on the other hand, would offset losses in these economies by supporting their shift from supplying the internal combustion engine (ICE) production chain to that of EVs”.

Carbon pricing: The Effectiveness of Carbon Pricing: A Global Evaluation by Suphi Sen, Serhan Sadikoglu, Changjing Ji, and Edwin van der Werf as of Oct. 23rd, 2024 (#21): “We show that adopting a carbon price reduces per capita CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion by 8 to 12 percent on average. … we find gradual adjustments after implementation, resulting in a 19 to 23 percent decrease in per capita emissions after 10 years. … we also show that the estimated effects of carbon pricing policies stabilize after a decade following their enactment. … This result challenges the idea that carbon pricing may not be necessary in low-emitting countries, such as those in Africa. … Furthermore, we show that the effects of carbon pricing policies do not overlap with the potential effects of renewable energy policies to a large extent“ (p. 31/32).

Low GHG reduction? Do carbon markets undermine private climate initiatives? Pat Akey, Ian Appel, Aymeric Bellon, and Johannes Klausmann as of Sept. 25th, 2024 (#185): “We examine firms’ behaviors in carbon secondary markets following the adoption of climate initiatives. … we confirm that such commitments are associated with lower future emissions, leading to a reduction in allowances surrendered. In response to needing fewer allowances, we observe an increase in net sales of allowances, driven primarily by a rise in sales rather than a reduction in purchases. However, we find no evidence that firms voluntarily retire allowances. … We find evidence that commitments are associated with an increase in ESG scores related to climate” (p. 23).

9-Euro pollution reduction: Public Transport Subsidization and Air Pollution: Evidence from the 9-Euro-Ticket in Germany by Eren Aydina and Kathleen Kürschner Rauck as of Nov. 20th, 2023 (#141): “We study the short-term effects of the 9-Euro-Ticket, a major German public transport subsidization program, on particulate matter (PM). .. we find declines in PM10 and PM2.5 at core traffic stations, displaying differential effects of −0.44 µg/m3 and −0.41 µg/m3 relative to less frequented locations, which corresponds to approximately 2.8 % and 8.5 % of the current limit guidelines that the WHO suggests to mitigate adverse effects on human health. Pollution reductions materialize in regions with above-average public-transportation accessibility, are most pronounced during peak travel times on weekdays and in regions with above-average population density and larger car fleets, suggesting reductions in car usage sign responsible for our findings” (abstract).

ESG investment research (in: Bluewashing)

Biodiversity underreporting: Mind the Gap?! The Current State of Biodiversity Reporting by Gerrit von Zedlitz as of Oct. 2nd, 2024 (#647): “… I therefore explore the biodiversity reporting of large European public firms between 2020 and 2022. … firms disclose twice as much content on climate as on biodiversity and focus more on the quantitative dimensions of reporting. But biodiversity reporting is evolving quickly. Firms reported 63% more in 2022 than they did two years ago. … current biodiversity reporting, also by early reporters, remains largely qualitative. Even in 2022, firms provided less than 20% of the recommended disclosures on targets and metrics“ (p. 31/32).

Sovereign bond climate costs: Does Climate Change Impact Sovereign Bond Yields? by Michael Barnett and Constantine Yannelis as of Oct. 1st, 2024 (#49): “We started our analysis with the following question: Do sovereign bonds prices today incorporate future climate risk? Our theoretical analysis and empirical estimates show that in fact they do. … our empirical analysis shows that projections of future climate change damage have a statistically significant impact on sovereign bond yields. Moreover, we find that these implications are most significant for bonds with the longest maturity horizon. … countries projected to suffer more economic damage from the effects of climate change in the future see higher borrowing costs today. …” (p.38). My comment: With my responsible investment portfolios I invest in Development Bank Bonds instead of Government Bonds

Is good ESG bad? What you see is not what you get: ESG scores and greenwashing risk by Manuel C. Kathana, Sebastian Utz, Gregor Dorfleitner, Jens Eckberg, and Lea Chmel as of Oct. 12th, 2024 (#39): “This paper shows that ESG scores capture a company’s greenwashing behavior. Greenwashing accusations are most prevalent among large companies with high ESG scores. We empirically employ a novel theoretical model that distinguishes between the communication of a company’s environmental efforts (apparent environmental performance) and its actual environmental impact (real environmental performance). The correlation of the apparent (real) environmental performance with ESG scores is significantly positive (negative). Therefore, ESG scores are unsuitable for measuring real performance. Thus, investors focusing on high ESG-rated companies may unknowingly increase their greenwashing risk exposure, and academics may use misleading information to assess greenwashing risk” (abstract). My comment: That big and high-ESG companies face higher greenwashing risks, seems to be obvious to me. ESG-ratings typically reflect ESG-risks. The authors measure real environmental performance “by Scope 1 intensity, Scope 2 intensity, Misleading communications, Supply-chain issues, Energy management, and Landscape impact” (p. 12).

ESG performance claim risks: Market vs Social norms: Evidence from ESG fund flows by Soohun Kim, S. Katie Moon, and Jiyeon Seo as of July 24th, 2024 (#44): “Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) funds, designed to integrate non-financial considerations into investment strategies, can result in unintended consequences by additionally emphasizing their focus on financial performance. We employ innovative textual analysis methods on fund prospectuses to assess the degree of emphasis that funds place on ESG factors versus traditional financial returns. … ESG fund managers’ emphasis on traditional monetary metrics leads to an increase in fund flow’s sensitivity to monetary performance. Paradoxically, this heightened sensitivity to monetary performance may hinder the long-term objectives of ESG investments“ (abstract).

Bluewashing? Green or Blue? The Effect of Sustainability Committees on ESG Decoupling by Weite Qiu Qiu, Yang Jinghan, Maqsood Ahmad and Sunny Sun as of Oct. 15th, 2024 (#10) “… we mainly investigate the effect of sustainability committees on the ESG decoupling. … Using a sample of 2,759 unique US listed firms over the 2002 to 2021 period, we find that the ESG decoupling is positively related to the sustainability committees. … decoupling measures find that sustainability committees improve firms’ environmental performance but increase the firms’ symbolic actions in social and governance aspects, indicating the potential bluewashing behavior“ (p. 27). My comment: Some sustainable fund evaluations use the existence and breadth of sustainability committees to judge the sustainability of mutual funds. There may be some bluewashinng of mutual funds, too.

ESG AI-Tool: Chatreport: Democratizing Sustainability Disclosure Analysis through LLM-based Tools by Jingwei Ni, Julia Bingler, Chiara Colesanti-Senni, Mathias Kraus, Glen Gostlow, Tobias Schimanski, Dominik Stammbach, Saeid Ashraf Vaghefi, Qian Wang, Nicolas Webersinke, Tobias Wekhof, Tingyu Yu, and Markus Leippold as of Nov.21st, 2023 (#1732): “Empowering stakeholders with LLM-based automatic analysis tools can be a promising way to democratize sustainability report analysis. However, developing such tools is challenging due to (1) the hallucination of LLMs and (2) the inefficiency of bringing domain experts into the AI development loop. In this paper, we introduce CHATREPORT, a novel LLM-based system to automate the analysis of corporate sustainability reports, addressing existing challenges by (1) making the answers traceable to reduce the harm of hallucination and (2) actively involving domain experts in the development loop. We make our methodology, annotated datasets, and generated analyses of 1015 reports publicly available“ (abstract).

Climate-AI-Tool: ClimateBERT-NetZero: Detecting and Assessing Net Zero and Reduction Targets by Tobias Schimanski, Julia Bingler, Camilla Hyslop, Mathias Kraus, and Markus Leippold as of Nov. 20th, 2023 (#453): “… this paper demonstrates the development and exemplary employment of ClimateBERT-NetZero, a model that automatically detects net zero and reduction targets in textual data. We show that the model can effectively classify texts and even outperforms larger, more energy-consuming architectures. We further demonstrate a more fine-grained analysis method by assessing the ambitions of the targets as well as demonstrating the large-scale analysis potentials by classifying earning call transcripts. By releasing the dataset and model, we deliver an important contribution to the intersection of climate change and NLP research” (p. 6/7).

SDG and impact investment research (in: Bluewashing)

Different circular loop effects: Mapping of circular economy strategies in the USA and their impact on financial performance by Josep Oriol Izquierdo-Montfort, Yves De Rongé, James Thewissen, Özgür Arslan-Ayaydin, and Sébastien Wilmet as of Oct. 12th, 2024 (#26):  “This study offers the first comprehensive analysis of circular economy (CE) strategies adopted by U.S. firms and their implications for financial performance. By examining over 2,000 ESG reports from 2007 to 2020 … We observe a growing emphasis on the explicit use of the term CE, alongside a notable focus on specific strategies such as recycling, reducing, and reusing. We find that disclosing CE strategies generally decreases firm value. Specifically, long-loop strategies, where the materials’ use is extended but products lose their original purpose, tend to enhance firm value. In contrast, medium-loop strategies, which involve repairing and upgrading products, negatively impact firm value. Short-loop strategies, aimed at increasing the direct utilization of products and improving resource efficiency, have no significant effect on firm value“ (abstract).

Investor impact: Institutional investors and the fight against climate change by Thea Kolasa and Zacharias Sautner as of May 6th, 2024 (#346): “We show that climate change has a significant impact on institutional  investors. Simutaneously, we demonstrate that institutional investors can have a significant positive impact on fighting climate change, particularly if they actively engage with portfolio firms to reduce carbon emissions. For risk management reasons, this is in their own interest, and it is also in the interests of society” (abstract). My comment: One of my engagement topics is GHG Scope 3 transparence so that all stakeholders can act on this information (see Shareholder engagement: 21 science based theses and an action plan)

Brown stock risks: International Climate News by Maria Jose Arteaga-Garavito, Ric Colacito, Mariano (Max) Massimiliano Croce, and Biao Yang as of Feb. 29th, 2024 (#520): “We develop novel high-frequency indices that measure climate attention …. This is achieved by analyzing the text of over 23 million tweets published by leading national news papers on Twitter during the period from 2014 to 2022. Our findings reveal that a country experiencing more severe climate news shocks tends to see both an inflow of capital and an appreciation of its currency. In addition, brown stocks in highly exposed countries experience large and persistent negative returns after a global climate news shock” (abstract).

Lucrative anti-clima lobbying: Corporate Climate Lobbying by Markus Leippold, Zacharias Sautner, and Tingyu Yu as of March 22nd, 2024 (#1179): “In this paper, we quantify corporate anti- and pro-climate lobbying expenses, identify the largest corporate lobbyists and their motives, establish how climate lobbying relates to business models, and document how climate lobbying is priced in financial markets. Firms spend, on average, $277k per year on anti-climate and $185k on pro-climate lobbying. Anti-climate lobbying is highly concentrated, with firms in Utilities and Petroleum & Natural Gas spending the largest total amounts. Pro-climate lobbying is more dispersed across sectors, but the Utility sector also ranks highest based on the aggregate amount of pro-climate lobbying. Recently, firms have tried to camouflage their lobbying activities by avoiding explicitly mentioning climate issues in lobbying reports. …More anti-climate spending is associated with more climate-related incidents. Firms with more anti-climate lobbying earn higher future returns, even after controlling for carbon emissions. The higher returns are not the effect of earnings surprises“ (p. 42). My comment: There seem to be too many buyers of anti-climate lobbying company shares who reward such behavior.

Profitable ESG-satisfaction: Putting the ‘S’ of ESG into Asset Pricing from a First-hand Perspective – Employee Satisfaction and Stock Returns: Evidence from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland by Nils Gimpl as of Aug. 12th, 2024 (#99): “Utilizing a unique dataset comprising 183,944 employee reviews from the employer rating platform Kununu, the analysis reveals that firms with high levels of employee satisfaction exhibit significant outperformance in stock returns compared to those with low employee satisfaction levels. … dissecting the employer ratings, strong associations between stock return effects and employee perceptions of a firm’s environmental and social awareness, equality, treatment of older colleagues, work-life balance, and working atmosphere are identified …“ (abstract). My comment: With my shareholder engagement I propose to regularly evaluate and publish employee ESG-satisfaction. That seems to be right, see HR-ESG shareholder engagement: Opinion-Post #210

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Werbehinweis (in: Bluewashing)

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in den von mir beratenen globalen Small-Cap-Investmentfonds (siehe FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R – DE000A2P37T6 – A2P37T) investieren und/oder ihn empfehlen. Der Fonds konzentriert sich auf die UN-Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung (aktuell durchschnittlich außerordentlich hohe 97% SDG-vereinbare Umsätze der Portfoliounternehmen) und verwendet separate E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Mindestratings sowie Aktionärsengagement bei derzeit 29 von 30 Unternehmen (siehe auch My fund).

Zum Vergleich: Globale Gesundheits- bzw. Renewables- oder SDG-Fonds kommen nur auf wesentlich geringere SDG-Umsatzquoten und Engagement-Quoten.

Nature credits illustration by MW from Pixabay

Nature credits and more: Researchpost 198

Nature credits illustration from Pixabay by MW

14x new research on GHG-data driven innovation, EU taxonomy benefits, diverse green preferences, ESG fund manipulation, ESG rating problems, AI for ESG, Art. 8/9 fund and SDG performance, nature credits, ESG compensation, AI-based financial analysis, retirement surprises and neighbor investment effects („#“ shows SSRN full paper downloads as of Oct. 17th, 2024)

Social and ecological research

GHG-data startup push: Mandatory Carbon Disclosure and New Business Creation by Raphael Duguay, Chenchen Li, and Frank Zhang as of Oct. 14th, 2024 (#36): “Prior work documents that mandatory GHG disclosure causes existing firms to reduce their GHG emissions by curbing economic activities and/or carbon intensity. We posit that such reductions create business opportunities for new firms. In addition, emissions reports contain information about production levels, allowing prospective entrants to estimate demand and identify profitable business opportunities. Consistent with our hypothesis, we find a significant increase in business births following the implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program in affected industries, compared to control industries. This effect is more pronounced in industries in which existing firms actively reduce carbon emissions and face heightened pressure“ (abstract).

Responsible investment research (in: Nature credits)

Good EU taxonomy? Is the EU Taxonomy a Rational Sustainability Tool? by Ibrahim E. Sancak as of Oct. 16th, 2024 (#89): “This paper examines the EU Sustainability Taxonomy (EUST) … As a regulation-based sustainability classification tool, it differs significantly from typical ESG indicators and perspectives by providing net positive-contribution indicators in terms of revenue, capex, and opex key performance indicators for businesses. … We find that the EUST is in the realm of the rational sustainability concept, indicating that the EUST is a rational sustainability tool, and it supports sustainability at heart by definition and design. The EUST is a real sustainability tool that can restore the losses of our planet and answer to challenges. It does not breach the free market realities. Companies decide their own sustainability policies; they can decide to what extent they should be Taxonomy-aligned, they can decide how much they have to invest in sustainability transformation, and they can freely decide which Taxonomy KPIs they have to focus on …“ (p. 21). My comment: I like the focus of the EUST on revenues, opex and capex but it can only provide politically accepted low minimum standards (see discussion about Gas, nuclear energy and defense industry) and it mostly leaves out social and shareholder engagement topics. It may be rational and not good enough, anyhow.

Different green preferences: The Sustainability Preferences of Individual and Institutional Investors by Gosia Ryduchowska and Moqi Groen-Xu as of Oct. 16th, 2024 (#16): “We compare the sustainability preferences of institutional investors to other investors, using the universe of holdings in bonds traded in Norway in the years 2010-20. We identify sustainability investors as those who choose Green Bonds over similar non-green bonds by the same issuers. … individual investors hold riskier portfolios with higher volatility and more defaults, although financial investors do not. Our results suggest that individual Green Bond investors have non-pecuniary green preferences but are not representative of the majority of sustainable investment in the market“ (abstract). My comment: I initiated the DVFA PRISC toll which helps investors to easily determine their sustainable investment policies and use this tool to compare investment options (DVFA_PRISC_Policy_for_Responsible_Investment_Scoring.pdf). A new version will be published soon.

ESG fund pushing? ESG Favoritism in Mutual Fund Families by Anna Zsofia Csiky, Rainer Jankowitsch, Alexander Pasler, and Marti G. Subrahmanyam as of Oct. 15th, 2024 (#34): “We empirically analyze whether mutual fund families favor their ESG funds potentially at the expense of their non-ESG siblings … We use a survivorship bias-free sample obtained from Morningstar Direct, covering domestic US equity open-end funds from 2005 to 2022. … Our approach is built on comparing the performance of ESG with regular funds within and outside the family. Similar to the prior literature, we interpret a higher return differential between ESG and regular funds within the family, compared to outside, as an indication of cross-fund subsidization. We find a significant net-ofstyle return spread of around 2% per year, indicating sizable ESG favoritism within fund families“ (p. 30).

ESG rating problems and improvements: It’s Hard to Hit a Target that Doesn’t Exist: A Novel Conceptual Framework for ESG Ratings by Jorge Cruz-Lopez, Jordan B. Neyland, and  Dasha Smirnow as of Oct. 16th, 2024 (#8): “… Our framework consists of analyzing three different stages in the production of ESG ratings: (1) Data Collection and Disclosure, (2) Measurement, and (3) Dissemination. At each stage, we clearly identify the parties involved, their incentives and limitations, and the noise or bias introduced to ESG ratings due to misaligned incentives, data constraints, or inadequate regulations…  solutions include improving disclosure standards, incentivizing public data access to foster competition as well as transparency of rating methodologies, and relying on regular audits to verify the accuracy of corporate disclosures and ESG ratings“ (abstract).

Readability ESG impact: Evaluating the Impact of Report Readability on ESG Scores: A Generative AI Approach by Takuya Shimamura, Yoshitaka Tanaka, and Shunsuke Managi as of July 8th, 2024 (#46):  “This study explores the relationship between the readability of sustainability reports and ESG scores for U.S. companies using GPT-4, a generative AI tool. The findings reveal a positive correlation between context-dependent readability scores and the average of multiple ESG scores …. Conversely, existing readability scores reflecting word features show no correlation with ESG scores“ (abstract).

AI for ESG: AI in ESG for Financial Institutions: An Industrial Survey by Jun Xu as of Oct. 11th, 2024 (#21): “This paper surveys the industrial landscape to delineate the necessity and impact of AI in bolstering ESG frameworks. … our findings suggest that while AI offers transformative potential for ESG in banking, it also poses significant challenges that necessitate careful consideration. … We conclude with recommendations with a reference architecture for future research and development, advocating for a balanced approach that leverages AI’s strengths while mitigating its risks within the ESG domain“ (abstract).

No Art. 8/9 outperformance: SFDR versus performance classification: a clustering approach by Veronica Distefano, Vincenzo Gentile, Paolo Antonio Cucurachi and Sandra De Iaco as of July 10th, 2024 (#25): EU “… investment companies have to disclose in the key information document the category of each mutual fund. This regulation came into force in March 2021 and the first reaction of the market has been a strong shift of Assets Under Management (AUM) towards art. 8 and art. 9 funds. … This study showed that the expectations of better performances only based on the SFDR (Sö: Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation) classification is biased. … the contingency table show a low correlation of the classifications based on ESG declaration and on performances. … using the SFDR classification to create expectations of better future performance could be misleading“ (p. 8). My comment: I rather heard complaints lower performance expectations for Art. 8/9 funds due to perceived investment limitations. If there are similar returns, why not invest more sustainably?

Impact Investment research

Green cost reduction and SDG performance: The effects of ESG performance and sustainability disclosure on GSS bonds’ yields and spreads: A global analysis by Oliviero Roggi, Luca Bellardini, and Sara Conticelli as of July 10th, 2024 (#30): “Considering a sample of 3,960 green, sustainable, and sustainability-linked (GSS) bonds issued in global capital markets, this study investigates the effects of the issuer’s environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance on both the issue-specific yield spread — defined as the difference in yield-to-maturity between a corporate debt instrument and a sovereign comparable — and its spread vis-à-vis a sovereign comparable. The findings indicate that there is a negative association between ESG performance and bond spreads, implying that a greater commitment to the sustainable transition today is a winning strategy, for a company, to reduce the cost of debt for future projects. … we find that the real enabler of curbing the unexplained portion of risk is a detailed disclosure on the use of proceeds. This is likely to minimise the likelihood of greenwashing” (abstract).

“… With regard to Core yield, the pursuit of Goal 2 (Zero hunger) and Goal 9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure) is associated with a reduction in risk, whereas Goal 3 (Good health and well-being) and Goal 12 (Responsible consumption and production) are found to be risk-accruing. With regard to Core spread, Goal 5 (Gender equality), in addition to Goals 2 and 9, is negatively associated with a company’s cost of debt, net of the financial characteristics of the issue. The pursuit of Goal 12 and Goal 8 (Decent work and economic growth) has the opposite effect, but not Goal 3” (p. 6). My comment: This is one of the few studies with SDG-analysis. I hope that more will come.

Nature credits: Advancing Effective and Equitable Crediting: Natural Climate Solutions Crediting Handbook by John Ward, Christine Gerbode, Britta Johnston, and Suzi Kerr as of Oct. 10th, 2024 (#8): “Natural Climate Solutions, or NCS, are activities to protect, restore, or enhance ecosystems in terms of their ability to remove or sequester carbon. They can deliver about one third of the greenhouse gas emissions reductions needed this decade to achieve key climate goals. Implemented well, they also provide benefits for people and nature. Crediting of NCS mitigation is a powerful way to unlock this potential–but it is also controversial. … By clarifying essential terms and concepts underpinning NCS carbon crediting, highlighting solutions to technical challenges, and providing informed framing to help newcomers understand prominent ongoing debates, the NCS Crediting Handbook seeks to provide the reader with a clear introduction to the world of NCS crediting, and an impartial, accessible guide to support their decision making“ (abstract).

ESG compensation challenges: Implicit versus Explicit Contracting in Executive Compensation for Environmental and Social Performance by Roni Michaely, Thomas Schmid, and Menghan Wang as of Oct. 16th, 2024 (#31): “We examine whether linking executive pay to environmental and social targets (ES Pay) can help improve firms’ environmental and social performance. … firms that use explicit contracting for targets that can be precisely and objectively measured, such as emissions and incident rates, demonstrate better ES performance. By contrast, firms with implicit contracting show little improvement in these areas. However, for targets that are hard to measure, such as community engagement, or E/S reporting, implicit contracts are effective and can even outperform explicit contracting. … we observe a positive association between the adoption of ES Pay schemes and total CEO compensation … even when an increase in executive pay is observed, it is also associated with improved firms’ ES conduct. We find no increase in CEO pay among those firms using explicit schemes, or implicit schemes for easily measurable targets“ (p. 28/29). My comment: CEO pay is usually already very high with, quite often, >300x the average employee compensation. Introducing sustainability goals in executive compensation should not lead to a growing gap, in my opinion. One of my 5 shareholder engagement topics therefore is CEO to average employee pay ratio disclosure.

Other investment research (in: Nature Credits)

Financial Analyst AI-Risks: Large Language Models as Financial Analysts by Miquel Noguer i Alonso and Hanane Dupouy as of Oct. 7th, 2024 (#1004): “The ability of … GPT-4o, Gemini Advanced, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet to perform financial analysis highlights their potential as powerful tools for interpreting complex financial data. … When it comes to extrapolation questions that are the core of valuation and stock picking, the level of analysis provided by these LLMs is similar to that of skilled humans” (p. 15). My comment: Given the underperfomance of actively managed funds compared to passive benchmarks, this AI-performance is not enough.

Retirement surprises: Patterns of Consumption and Savings around Retirement by Arna Olafsson and Michaela Pagel as of Oct. 7th, 2024 (#23): “Using a large transaction-level data set from a financial aggregator on income, spending, account balances, and credit limits in Iceland, we document“ (p. 16) … First, many households have barely any savings and hold substantial amounts of consumer debt at the time of retirement. Second, consumption falls at retirement, possibly due to work-related expenses, bargain shopping, or because households face unexpected adverse shocks. Third, liquid savings increase at retirement. Fourth, wealth increases more over the course of retirement for the average household”.

Neighbor investment-effects: Wealth Accumulation: The Role of Others by Michael Haliassos as of Oct. 7th, 2024 (#19): “First, interacting with a larger proportion of neighbors with college-level economics or business education tends to promote retirement saving. … Second, college-educated people exposed to greater local wealth inequality as well as more wealth mobility at the start of their economic lives, tend to take more asset risks later in life and thus accrue greater wealth, leaving the less-educated behind. … Third, the current pattern of access to financial advice, under which the young and less experienced are also less likely to receive financial advice, tends to discourage stock market participation and reduce equity in retirement portfolios, because the peers of the young tend to be more conservative in their recommendations to them than professionals would have been. Professional advisors are more conservative towards the older and wealthier people that they do meet, compared to their peers. Finally, background stressors such as crises and wars, but also personal problems, occupy people’s minds as they make saving decisions” (p. 23/24).

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Werbehinweis (in: Nature credits)

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in den von mir beratenen globalen Small-Cap-Investmentfonds (siehe FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R – DE000A2P37T6 – A2P37T) investieren und/oder ihn empfehlen. Der Fonds konzentriert sich auf die UN-Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung (aktuell durchschnittlich außerordentlich hohe 97% SDG-vereinbare Umsätze der Portfoliounternehmen: Investment impact) und verwendet separate E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Mindestratings sowie Aktionärsengagement (Investor impact) bei derzeit 29 von 30 Unternehmen (siehe auch My fund).

Zum Vergleich: Globale Gesundheits- bzw. Renewables- oder SDG-Fonds kommen nur auf wesentlich geringere SDG-Umsatzquoten, ESG-Ratings und Engagement-Quoten.

Green brownies by Leann Bird from Pixabay

Green brownies: Researchpost 197

Green brownies picture by Leann Bird from Pixabay

10x new research on positive migration effects, warmer winter disappointments, severe greenwashes, institutional investor problems, biodiversity risks, green performance, ESG risks, green brownies, alternatives misbeliefs and communist memories (# shows number of full paper SSRN downloads as of October 11th, 2024)

Social and ecogical research

Positive migration effects: Migration into the EU: Stocktaking of Recent Developments and Macroeconomic Implications by Francesca Caselli, Huidan Lin, Frederik Toscani, and Jiaxiong Yao from the International Monetary Fund as of Oct. 7th, 2024 (#15): “… immigration into the European Union (EU) reached a historical high in 2022 and stayed significantly above pre-pandemic levels in 2023. The recent migration has helped accommodate strong labor demand, with around two-thirds of jobs created between 2019 and 2023 filled by non-EU citizens, while unemployment of EU citizens remained at historical lows. Ukrainian refugees also appear to have been absorbed into the labor market faster than previous waves of refugees in many countries. The stronger-than-expected net migration over 2020-23 into the euro area (of around 2 million workers) is estimated to push up potential output by around 0.5 percent by 2030—slightly less than half the euro area’s annual potential GDP growth at that time—even if immigrants are assumed to be 20 percent less productive than natives. … On the flipside, the large inflow had initial fiscal costs and likely led to some congestion of local public services such as schooling” (abstract).

Warmer winters disappointments: Rising Temperature, Nuanced Effects: Evidence from Seasonal and Sectoral Data by Ha Minh Nguyen and Samuel Pienknagura from the International Monetary Fund as of Oct. 7th, 2024 (#6): “Using quarterly and sectoral data, this paper uncovers nuanced effects of temperature. It finds that, for EMDEs (Sö: emerging markets and developing economies), hotter spring and summer temperatures reduce growth in real value-added of manufacturing, and most significantly, of agriculture—a 1-Celsius degree hotter spring reduces yoy growth in agricultural value-added in the same quarter by about 0.8 percentage points and by more than 1 percentage point for the following fall and winter. By contrast, a warmer winter boosts agricultural activity. For advanced countries (AEs), a hotter spring hurts growth in real value-added of all considered sectors: services, manufacturing and agriculture. Overall, for both country groups, the negative effect of a hotter spring is larger and more persistent than the positive effect of a warmer winter. …. The potentially increasing economic costs of rising temperature is also indicated by the fact that the adverse impacts of hotter temperatures in advanced economies and to a less extent, EMDEs, have accentuated in recent decades“ (p. 23).

Severe greenwashes: A turning tide in greenwashing? Exploring the first decline in six years by RepRisk as of October 2024: “Despite an overall 12% decline in greenwashing cases, high-risk incidents surged by over 30% in 2023-2024. Nearly 30% of companies linked to greenwashing in 2022-2023 were repeat offenders in 2024. In the EU’s Banking and Financial Services sector, climate-related greenwashing incidents declined by 20% in 2024, a likely consequence of stricter regulations”.

Institutional investor problems: Institutional Investor Distraction and Unethical Business Practices: Evidence from Stakeholder-Related Misconduct by Daniel Neukirchen, Gerrit Köchling, and Peter N. Posch as of July 6th, 2024 (#371): “… we …  exploit exogenous shocks to institutional investors’ portfolios to show that managers engage in significantly more stakeholder-related misconduct when institutional investors are distracted. … The effects are stronger when CEOs have more outside options in the executive the labor market, stronger career concerns and equity incentives, as well as for firms in competitive environments, which speaks to a potential underlying pattern in which CEOs weigh up the benefits and disadvantages before exploiting periods of institutional distraction to commit misconduct. … we provide some evidence suggesting that employees may be particularly vulnerable. … our cross-sectional tests suggest that career concerns drive this behavior” (p. 34).

ESG investment research (in: Green brownies)

Corporate biodiversity risks: Does biodiversity matter for firm value? by Simona Cosma, Stefano Cosma, Daniela Pennetta and Giuseppe Rimo as of October 7th, 2024 (#50): “In our article we introduce the Corporate Biodiversity Footprint as a proxy for the corporate-generated impact on biodiversity. By analyzing a sample of 1,848 publicly listed companies, we empirically estimate the effect the biodiversity loss caused by a firm’s annual activities on firm value. Our results … show that firms‘ impact on biodiversity negatively affects their firm value” (abstract).

Green outperformance? Managing Climate-Change Risks vs. Chasing Green Opportunities — What Works? by Elchin Mammadov, Xinxin Wang, and Drashti Shah from MSCI as of September 30th, 2024: “Constituents of the MSCI ACWI Investable Market Index (IMI) with high scores on the climate-change theme outperformed globally across most sectors over the past 11 years. Over this period, leaders in the environmental-opportunities theme recorded higher market returns compared to laggards, although outperformance has sharply reversed since 2021. Despite this reversal, analysts’ consensus estimates suggest an improved outlook for environmental-opportunity leaders, with expected improvements in profitability from 2024 to 2027”.

Good ESG reduces risks: ESG risks and Corporate Viability: Insights from Default Probability Term Structure Analysis by Fabrizio Ferriani and Marcello Pericoli as of Oct. 8th, 2024 (#18): “We analyze the impact of ESG risks on the term structure of default probabilities of European non-financial corporations from 2014 to 2022. Our findings reveal that higher ESG scores decrease a company’s inherent risk implicit in its probability of default, with a more pronounced effect as the time horizon for default probability increases. The relevance of ESG risks on corporate viability fluctuates over time and tends to intensify following major events related to sustainability risks, such as the Paris Agreement or the Covid-19 pandemic. … ESG considerations … also influence the credit risk premium required by investors“ (abstract).

Green brownies: Do Investors Use Sustainable Assets as Carbon Offsets? by Jakob Famulok, Emily Kormanyos, and Daniel Worring as of Sept. 24, 2024 (#345): “We find evidence that high-emission consumers tend to invest more sustainably, suggesting a compensatory behavior. Our analyses, using unique transaction-level data, show that these consumers prefer investments with favorable environmental ratings. Additional evidence from a survey with the same bank whose data we analyze supports that this is a conscious choice. We address several associated concerns in a series of robustness analyses, providing evidence that this behavior is not driven by income or consumption levels, financial motives, or heterogeneous sustainability preferences. Furthermore, we conduct a randomized control trial showing causally that individuals are more likely to choose sustainable investments after learning about their high carbon footprints. This behavior diminishes when direct carbon offsets are an option, indicating that sustainable investments and direct offsets are viewed as substitutes” (p.19/20). My comment: Perhaps I should market my fund especially to “brownies”.

Other investment research (in: Green brownies)

Alternatives misbelieves? The Rise of Alternatives by Juliane Begenau, Pauline Liang, and Emil Siriwardane as of Oct. 1st, 2024 (#165): “Since the early 2000s, public pensions in the United States have substantially altered the composition of their risky investments, shifting out of public equities and into alternative investments like private equity, real estate, and hedge funds. Explanations based on a desire to take risk, such as those caused by underfunding, have limited empirical support. Instead, we propose a new perspective rooted in beliefs: U.S. pensions increasingly perceive alternative investments to provide a more favorable risk-return profile than public equities, some more so than others. This belief-based perspective follows from textbook portfolio theory … While our study provides suggests beliefs about alternatives are shaped by consultants, peers, and experience during the 1990s, more research is needed to fully understand the process by which pensions form beliefs” (p.38/39). My comment: Recent research shows no or very little outperformance of alternative investments especially after direct and opportunity costs.

Communist memories: The long-lasting effects of experiencing communism on attitudes towards financial markets by Christine Laudenbach, Ulrike Malmendier, and Alexandra Niessen-Ruenzi as of Oct. 3rd,2024 (#505): “We show that exposure to anti-capitalist ideology can exert a lasting influence on attitudes towards capital markets and stock-market participation. Utilizing novel survey, bank, and broker data, we document that, decades after Germany’s reunification, East Germans invest significantly less in stocks and hold more negative views on capital markets. … Results are strongest for individuals remembering life in the German Democratic Republic positively …. Results reverse for those with negative experiences like religious oppression, environmental pollution, or lack of Western TV entertainment” (abstract).

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Werbehinweis (in: Green brownies)

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in den von mir beratenen globalen Small-Cap-Investmentfonds (siehe FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R – DE000A2P37T6 – A2P37T) investieren und/oder ihn empfehlen. Der Fonds konzentriert sich auf die UN-Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung (aktuell durchschnittlich außerordentlich hohe 97% SDG-vereinbare Umsätze der Portfoliounternehmen: Investment impact) und verwendet separate E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Mindestratings sowie Aktionärsengagement (Investor impact) bei derzeit 29 von 30 Unternehmen (siehe auch My fund).

Wong ESG compensation illustration from Pixabay by Ray Alexander

Wrong ESG compensation? Researchpost 196

Wrong ESG compensation illustration from Pixabay by Ray Alexander

10x new research on new toxics, climate target ambitions, financial analysts and climate topics, new ESG regulation effect on investments, ESG compensation governance deficits, ESG compensation outcome deficits, costly custom indices, unattractive private capital investments, gender-typical investment problems, and AI for retirement planning

ESG research

New toxics: Novel Entities – A financial time bomb by Planet Tracker as of Oct. 1st, 2024: “There are hundreds of thousands of novel entities – toxic substances created by humans and released into the environment that may be disruptive to the planet – travelling through the global economy. … most novel entities have not undergone safety assessments or information on those are protected or not shared. … Evaluating novel entities after they have been created and released is not acceptable. … Novel entities are often viewed by investors and lenders as technological progress adding to revenue and earnings potential. Novel entities are a source of significant litigation risk. Novel entities produced decades ago can still cause significant financial downside to companies today and in the future” (p. 5).

Intrinsic climate success: Raising the bar: What determines the ambition level of corporate climate targets? by Clara Privato, Matthew P. Johnson, and Timo Busch as of Sept. 9th, 2024: “Since the launch of the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), we have witnessed a steady increase in the number of companies committing to climate targets for large-scale reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. … a two-stage qualitative study is conducted with a sample of 22 companies from five countries. … Within companies with highly ambitious climate targets, the findings indicate that certain factors are highly present, including leadership engagement, continual management support, employee involvement, participation in climate initiatives, and stakeholder collaboration. Conversely, none of these key factors are highly present in companies with less ambitious climate targets. Rather, these companies strongly identify the initiating factors of market-related pressures and non-market stakeholder influence as being the driving forces behind their target setting“ (abstract).

Climate analysts? Climate Value and Values Discovery by Zacharias Sautner, Laurence van Lent, Grigory Vilkov, and Ruishen Zhang as of July 24th, 2024 (#953): “Analyzing more than 310,000 earnings calls spanning two decades … the interest of analysts in “green topics ” is situational, reflecting market demands rather than persistent individual traits. Trading volume around earnings announcements is positively associated with the degree of climate discussions on earnings calls. … we find correlations between an analyst’s profile in earnings calls and career trajectories, with climate-centric analysts, particularly those focusing on value, experiencing better job opportunities. Climate analysts use voice, not exit, to ask (brown) firms to change“ (p. 25/26).

Regulation-driven divestments: Triggering a Divestment Wave? How ESMA’s Guidelines on ESG Fund Names Affect Fund Portfolios and Stocks by Stefan Jacob, Pauline Vitzthum, and Marco Wilkens as of Sept. 12th, 2024 (#58): “This paper examines the impact of the European Securities and Markets Authority’s (ESMA) Guidelines on funds’ names using ESG-related terms. These guidelines define clear exclusion criteria for sustainability-named funds. We examine the extent to which funds will be required to exclude non-compliant stocks, resulting in substantial divestments, particularly from firms with fossil fuel involvements. The enforcement of these guidelines is expected to significantly decarbonize the portfolios of sustainability-named funds, while at the same time triggering unprecedented selling pressure on certain stocks“ (abstract).

Wrong ESG compensation (1): ESG Overperformance? Assessing the Use of ESG Targets in Executive Compensation Plans by Adam B. Badawi and Robert Bartlett as of Sept. 10th, 2024 (#366): “The practice of linking executive compensation to ESG performance has recently become more prevalent in US public companies. In this paper, we document the extent of this practice within S&P 500 firms during the 2023 proxy season … We find that 315 of these firms (63.0%) include an ESG component in their executives’ compensation and that the vast majority of these incentives are part of the annual incentive plan (AIA) … While executives miss all of their financial targets 22% of the time in our sample, we show that this outcome is exceptionally rare for ESG-based compensation. Only 6 of 247 (2%) firms that disclose an ESG performance incentive report missing all of the ESG targets. We ask whether the ESG overperformance that we observe is associated with exceptional ESG outcomes or, instead, is related to governance deficiencies. Our findings that meeting ESG-based targets is not associated with improvements in ESG scores and that the presence of ESG-linked compensation is associated with more opposition in say-on-pay votes provides support for the weak governance theory over the exceptional performance theory“ (abstract). My comment With my shareholder engagement I ask companies to publish the pay ratio between their CEO and the average employee. Thus, all stakeholders can monitor if ESG compensation increases this already typically critically high metric (which I fear), also see Wrong ESG bonus math? Content-Post #188 and Kontraproduktive ESG-Ziele für Führungskräfte? | CAPinside

Wrong ESG compensation (2)? Paychecks with a Purpose: Evaluating the Effectiveness of CEO Equity and Cash Compensation for the Triple Bottom Line by Dennis Bams, Frederique Bouwman, and Bart Frijns as of Oct. 2nd, 2024 (#4): “We find that CEOs are more inclined to opt for a CSR strategy emphasizing Environmental Outcomes when they receive a larger proportion of their compensation in cash. … additional tests show that intentions have no predictive power for outcomes. … While the proportion of option compensation is beneficial for a CSR strategy that focuses on outcomes, the proportion of stock compensation motivates a focus on intentions. … In conclusion, our study shows that the prevailing approach of compensation packages focusing on equity compensation does not promote the triple bottom line principle.

Other investment research (in: Wrong ESG compensation)

Index illusion: Index Disruption: The Promise and Pitfalls of Self-Indexed ETFs by Bige Kahraman, Sida Li, and Anthony Limburg as of Sept. 27th, 2024 (#42): “The market for index providers is a concentrated market where the five largest providers serve approximately 95 percent of the market. … An increasing number of ETF issuers are creating proprietary indices in-house to avoid paying fees to third party index providers. In this paper, we … find that self-index funds offer higher, not lower, fees to their customers. To explain this, we suggest two hypotheses, one based on product differentiation and the other one based on conflicts of interest. Our results support the latter“ (p. 22). My comment: There are many (sustainability policy) reasons for custom portfolios but these portfolios should not be more expensive (see e.g. my direct SDG indexing options)

Private capital alpha illusion: The Private Capital Alpha by Gregory Brown, Andrei S. Goncalves, and Wendy Hu as of Sept. 25th, 2024 (#368): “We combine a large sample of 5,028 U.S. buyout, venture capital, and real estate funds from 1987 to 2022 to estimate the alphas of private capital asset classes under realistic simulations that account for the illiquidity and underdiversification in private markets as well as the portfolio allocation of typical limited partners. We find that buyout as an asset class has provided a positive and statistically significant alpha during our sample period. In contrast, over our sample period, the venture capital alpha was positive but statistically unreliable and the real estate alpha was, if anything, negative“ (p. 31). My comment: Most investors use gatekeepers of funds of funds to invest in private capital and after those costs even buyout alpha may be negligible”.

Lower-risk women: How Gender Differences and Behavioral Traits matter in Financial Decision-Making? Insights from Experimental and Survey Data by Giuseppe Attanasi, Simona Cicognani, Paola Paiardini, and Maria Luigia Signore as of Feb. 3rd, 2024 (#112): “… Our research suggests that gender alone does not exclusively determine diverse behavioral and investment choices. Instead, it is the context in which these choices are elicited that plays a crucial role. …(but) female investors consistently demonstrated a lower likelihood of engaging in investment activities across the financial domains of risk and ambiguity. … a tendency to invest less in risky financial assets limits the potential for accumulating greater wealth over time “ (p. 30).

Financial AI? Can ChatGPT Plan Your Retirement?: Generative AI and Financial Advice by Andrew W. Lo and Jillian Ross as of Sept. 4th, 2024 (#896): “… We focus on three challenges facing most LLM applications: domain-specific expertise and the ability to tailor that expertise to a user’s unique situation, trustworthiness and adherence to the user’s moral and ethical standards, and conformity to regulatory guidelines and oversight. … we focus on the narrow context of financial advice … Our goal is not to provide solutions to these challenges … but to propose a framework and road map for solving them as part of a larger research agenda for improving generative AI in any application” (abstract).

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Werbehinweis

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in den von mir beratenen globalen Small-Cap-Investmentfonds (siehe FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R – DE000A2P37T6 – A2P37T) investieren und/oder ihn empfehlen. Der Fonds konzentriert sich auf die UN-Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung (aktuell durchschnittlich außerordentlich hohe 97% SDG-vereinbare Umsätze der Portfoliounternehmen: Investment impact) und verwendet separate E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Mindestratings sowie Aktionärsengagement (Investor impact) bei derzeit 29 von 30 Unternehmen (siehe auch My fund).

Sustainability deficit illustration: Painter by Alexas Fotos from Pixabay

Sustainability deficits: Researchpost 188

Sustainability deficits picture from Pixabay by Alexas Fotos

11x new research on green jobs, carbon prices, GHG reporting, accountants, ESG disclosures, institutional ESG, Governance returns, kid investments, ETF liquidity, loss aversion and customized investments (# shows SSRN full paper downloads as of August 8th, 2024)

Social and ecological research

Good green job effects: The Green Future: Labor Market Implications for Men and Women by Naomi-Rose Alexander, Longji Li, Jorge Mondragon, Sahar Priano, and Marina M. Tavares from the International Monetary Fund as of July 25th, 2024 (#15): “In AEs (Sö: Advanced economies), green jobs are predominantly found among high-skilled workers and cognitive occupations, whereas in EMs, many green jobs are manual positions within the construction sector …. green jobs are disproportionately held by men in both AEs and Ems … Additionally, we observe a green wage premium and narrower gender pay gaps in green jobs … many green jobs are well-positioned to harness the benefits of AI advancements … green jobs with a greater capacity to leverage AI exhibit a reduced gender pay gap” (p. 40/41).

Sustainability deficits (1): Negative carbon price effects: Firms’ heterogeneous (and unintended) investment response to carbon price increases by Anna Matzner and Lea Steininger as of July 29th, 2024 (#13): “Using balance sheet data of 1.2 million European firms and identified carbon policy shocks, we find that higher carbon prices reduce investment, on average. However, less carbon-intensive firms and sectors reduce their investment relatively more compared to otherwise similar firms after a carbon price tightening shock. Following carbon price tightening, firms in demand-sensitive industries see a relative decrease not only in investment but also in sales, employment and cashflow. Moreover, we find no evidence that higher carbon prices incentivise carbon-intensive firms to produce less emission-intensively. Overall, our results are consistent with theories of the growth-hampering features of carbon price increases and suggest that carbon pricing policy operates as a demand shock“ (abstract).

Sustianbility deficits (2): Corporate carbon deficits: The MSCI Sustainability Institute Net-Zero Tracker from the MSCI Sustainability Institute as of July 2024: “A series of indicators that investors use to guide transition finance … suggest that the world’s listed companies remain largely misaligned with global climate goals … Just over one-fifth (22%) of listed companies have set a decarbonization target that aims to reduce their financially relevant GHG emissions to net-zero by 2050 in line with a science-based pathway, as of May 31, 2024, an increase of eight percentage points from a year earlier … 38% of companies disclosed at least some of their upstream Scope 3 emissions, up eight percentage points from a year earlier, while 28% disclosed at least some of their downstream Scope 3 emissions, up seven percentage points over the same period” (p. 4). My comment: I ask every company within my fund to fully disclose GHG Scope 3 data so that all stakeholders can engage regarding these data.

Sustainability deficits (3): Accountant ESG deficits: ESG Assurance and Comparability of Greenhouse Gas Emission Disclosures by Jenna Burke, Jiali Luo, Zvi Singer, and Jing Zhang as of Aug. 7th, 2024 (#7): “… a recent rule from the SEC mandates expanded ESG disclosure, including external assurance of reported greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. …. we … find that companies with ESG assurance report more comparable GHG emissions. Comparability is further enhanced when companies use the same assurance provider and when the provider is more experienced. We also find some evidence that comparability is higher when assurance is provided by consulting and engineering firms than by accounting firms“ (abstract).

ESG investment research (in: Sustainability deficits)

Sustainability deficits (4): No ESG disclosure benefits? Does mandating corporate social and environmental disclosure improve social and environmental performance?: Broad-based evidence regarding the effectiveness of Directive 2014/95/EU by Charl de Villiers, John Dumay, Federica Farneti, Jing Jia, and Zhongtian Li as of July 11th, 2024 (#33): “The Directive …requires companies that are (i) listed on EU exchanges or have significant operations within the EU; (ii) employing more than 500 people; or (iii) deemed to be public-interest entities; to report their performance on non-financial matters, including environmental issues, social and employee matters, human rights, anti-corruption, and bribery” (p. 1). … “Analysing a cross-country sample from 2009-2020, we find that social and environmental performance has not meaningfully improved since the Directive was enacted, and instead of EU companies increasing their performance more than US companies, there was either no difference (for social performance) or US companies improved more than EU companies (for environmental performance). Thus, the results suggest that the Directive did not have the intended impact on the social and environmental performance of EU companies “ (p. 19). My comment: Is more regulatory pressure required or more stakeholder engagement or both?

Sustainability deficits (5): Institutional ESG deficits: Comparisons of Asset Manager, Asset Owner, and Wealth and Retail Portfolios by Peter Jacobs, Ursula Marchioni, Stefan Poechhacker, Nicolas Werbach, and Andrew Ang from BlackRock as of April 16th,2024 (#183): “We examine 800 portfolios from European asset managers, asset owners, and wealth/retail managers … The average European institutional portfolio exhibits a total risk hovering between 10 to 11%, with little difference across the average asset manager, asset owner, and wealth/retail portfolios. Equity risk … accounting for almost 90% of the total portfolio risk. Decomposing equity risk further, country-specific tilts are the primary driver of equity risk, contributing approximately half of the overall equity risk. Style factors and sectors represent 35% and 17% of the equity risk, respectively. … the largest style factor exposure is small size. … the average European institution has lower carbon intensities, but perhaps surprisingly lower ESG scores, than the MSCI ACWI benchmark“ (p. 22). My comment: I do not expect significant positive share- and bondholder pressure from these investors. This opens room for more customized investor-driven solutions (see the last research publication of this blog post).

Governance returns: From Crisis to Opportunity: The Impact of ESG Scores and Board Structure on Firms’ Profitability by Luis Seco, Azin Sharifi and Shiva Zamani as of Aug. 6th, 2024 (#13): “This study … of firms listed in the S&P 500 index from 2016 to 2022 reveals that firms with a higher BSI index (Sö: Board structure index) demonstrate enhanced financial profitability …. Among the ESG components, only the Governance score significantly impacts financial profitability, … whereas Environmental and Social scores do not show a significant direct effect on net profit margins … the positive impact of robust board structures and governance practices is more pronounced in the post-COVID period “ (p. 16/17). My comment: Our study from 2014 revealed similar results, see Fetsun, A. and Söhnholz, D. (2014): A quantitative approach to responsible investment: Using ESG multifactor models to improve equity portfolios, Veritas Investment Arbeitspapier, presented at PRI Academic Network Conference in Montreal, September 23rd (140227 ESG_Paper_V3 1 (naaim.org))

Other investment research (in: Sustainability deficits)

Kids beat adults: Invest Like for Your Kids: Performance and Implications of Children’s Investment Accounts on Portfolios in Adulthood by Denis Davydov and Jarkko Peltomäki as of April 16th, 2024 (#78): “… we explore the performance of custodial investment accounts for children and their subsequent impact on portfolio performance in adulthood. We find that children’s investment accounts demonstrate superior performance, boasting an average Sharpe ratio over 35% higher and an annual return three times greater compared to adults’ accounts. Notably, the observed trading activity and account behavior in children’s accounts suggest a preference for passive investment strategies. In addition, the combination of lower volatility and higher returns in children’s accounts may indicate a more effective diversification strategy adopted by parents. … the risk-taking and overall account activity of teenage boys become significantly higher than those of girls, resulting in deteriorated investment performance. … individuals who had investment accounts during childhood consistently demonstrate superior performance compared to their peers who started investing in adulthood” (p. 26/27).

ETF liquidity risk: Passing on the hot potato: the use of ETFs by open-ended funds to manage redemption requests by Lennart Dekker, Luis Molestina Vivar, and Christian Weistroffer as of Aug. 1st, 2024 (#12): “Investment funds are the largest group of ETF investors in the euro area. Our results … show that investment funds were the most run-prone investor type during the COVID-19 crisis. We then show that ETF selling by open-ended funds during March 2020 was stronger for funds facing larger outflows. … This finding is consistent with funds using ETFs for managing liquidity and raising cash if needed“ (p. 16).

Loss aversion? A meta-analysis of disposition effect experiments by Stephen L. Cheung as of pril 3rd, 2024 (#53): “This paper reports a meta-analysis of the disposition effect – the reluctance to liquidate losing investments – in three standard experimental environments in which this behaviour is normatively a mistake. … the literature finds that investors are around 10% more willing to sell winning compared to losing assets, despite optimal choice dictating the opposite“ (abstract).

Hyper-managed customized investments? Beyond Active and Passive Investing: The Customization of Finance from the CFA Institute Research Foundation by Marc R. Reinganum and Kenneth A. Blay as of Aug. 6th, 2024: “…The overwhelming ascendancy of index funds associated within the US Equity Large-Cap Blend category is the exception rather than the rule. … The economics of customizable portfolios, enabled by technology facilitating hyper-managed separate accounts, will yield better outcomes for investors in terms of after-tax returns and alignment with investor attitudes and preferences. … In the future, active and passive investing will coexist but will increasingly take place within hyper-managed separate accounts, where the passive component will be implemented in an unbundled way rather than in a fund to maximize net economic benefits and other objectives. … The next frontier for asset managers and their service providers will be the era of low-cost customization“ (p. 76/77). My comment: See Index- und Nachhaltigkeits-Investing 2.0? | CAPinside

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Werbehinweis

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in meinen globalen Smallcap-Investmentfonds (SFDR Art. 9) investieren und/oder ihn empfehlen. Der Fonds konzentriert sich auf die Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung (SDG: Investment impact) und verwendet separate E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Mindestratings sowie ein breites Aktionärsengagement (Investor impact) bei derzeit 29 von 30 Unternehmen: Vgl. My fund.

Impactfonds: Bild von Mastertux von Pixabay

Impactfonds im Nachhaltigkeitsvergleich

Impactfonds: Foto von Mastertux von Pixabay

Es ist schwierig, passende nachhaltige Fonds zu finden

Nachhaltige Investments sind kein No-Brainer. Ein Problem dabei: Nachhaltige Investments können sehr unterschiedlich definiert werden. Ich verweise meist auf das von mir mit entwickelte Policies for Responsible Invesment Scoring Concept der DVFA (DVFA PRISC, vgl. Kapitel 7.3 in Das Soehnholz ESG und SDG Portfoliobuch). Damit können Anleger, Berater und Anbieter ihre individuelle Nachhaltigkeitspolitik festlegen. Das ist einfach. Schwierig wird es, wenn die dazu passenden Investmentfonds gefunden werden sollen. In diesem Beitrag zeige ich, wie man das machen kann und welche Fonds besonders gut zu meinen Nachhaltigkeitsanforderungen passen.

Wenig überraschend ist, dass der von mir beratene Fonds dabei am besten abschneidet. Neu für mich war aber, wie stark die Unterschiede zu anderen Smallcap-Fonds sind, die den Fondsnamen nach mit meinem Fonds vergleichbar sein sollten. Das gilt auch für die Performance.

Was ist ein liquider Impactfonds?

Laut Bundesinitiative Impact Investing ist wirkungsorientiertes Investieren ein Investmentansatz, der neben einer finanziellen Rendite auch eine messbare ökologische und/oder soziale Wirkung erzielen soll.

Ich beschränke mich in dieser Analyse auf liquide Investments. Das heißt, dass ich nur Fonds vergleiche, die in börsennotierte Wertpapiere investieren. Damit werden Fonds ausgeklammert, die Empfängern direkt zusätzliches Eigen- oder Fremdkapital bringen können. Das reduziert den potenziellen Impact von Fonds.

Allerdings ist mir die jederzeitige Änderungsmöglichkeit von Investments sehr wichtig. Das zeigt sich daran, dass ich bisher schon 60 Aktien aus meinem im August 2021 gestarteten und aus 30 Aktien bestehenden Fonds verkauft habe (vgl. Divestments: 49 bei 30 Aktien meines Artikel 9 Fonds und das Engagementreporting auf FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals). Verkaufsgründe waren überwiegend meine zunehmend höheren Nachhaltigkeitsansprüche und (relativ) verschlechterte Nachhaltigkeit der Aktien im Portfolio. Mit illiquiden Investments ist man meistens mehrere Jahre an diese gebunden. Das bedeutet, dass man ein relativ hohes Nachhaltigkeitsrisiko eingeht (vgl. Free Lunch: Diversifikation nein, Nachhaltigkeit ja?).

Man kann zwei Arten von Impactinvestments unterscheiden, nämliche solche mit Fokus auf den Impact der Anlagen selbst und andere, die den Impact von Anlegern Berücksichtigen (vgl. Impactleitfaden der DVFA DVFA-Fachausschuss Impact veröffentlicht Leitfaden Impact Investing und ähnlich Eurosif und Forum nachhaltige Geldanlagen, Marktbericht 2024 S. 13). Im ersten Fall sind das zum Beispiel Aktien und Anleihen von Herstellern erneuerbarer Energien. Im zweiten Fall ist das die positive Einflussnahme von Anlegern über Stimmrechtsausübungen und andere Formen von Engagement, um Investmentziele nachhaltiger zu machen.

109 diversifizierte Impactfonds?

In Deutschland werden aktuell ungefähr neuntausend Investmentfonds mit insgesamt 34.500 Anteilsklassen öffentlich angeboten (vgl. Fonds-Suche | DAS INVESTMENT Fonds Explorer). Ungefähr 4% davon bzw. 350 sind Fonds nach dem strengsten Nachhaltigkeitsartikel 9 der Offenlegungsverordnung.

Man könnte annehmen, dass nur Artikel 9 Fonds auch Impactfonds sein können. Das Forum nachhaltige Geldanlagen kommt aber zu anderen Ergebnissen. Danach fallen „fast 60 Prozent der Artikel-6-Mandate bzw. Spezialfonds … in die Kategorie „Impact-Aligned“ (FNG Marktbericht 2024, S. 20). Das erscheint mir sehr viel.

Für meine eigene Analyse habe ich mir die verfügbaren Fonds auf www.morningstar.de angesehen und nach Stichworten im Fondsnamen gesucht. Ich interessiere mich dabei vor allem für Fonds mit Impact und Sustainable Development Goals im Namen. Bei den sogenannten aktiven Fonds finde ich nur 582 von 62325, also 0,9% aller potenziellen Anteilsklassen mit „Impact“ im Namen. Hinzu kommen 0,4% mit „Sustainable Development Goals“ bzw. „SDG“ im Namen. Insgesamt finde ich sich so 84 unterschiedliche Impactfonds.

Ohne Transitions-, reine Engagement- und wenig diversifizierte Fonds

Dabei habe ich Fonds ausgeklammert, die Transitionen von schlechteren zu besseren Nachhaltigkeiten anstreben. Das wären zum Beispiel Paris-Aligned Benchmark (PAB) Fonds. Diese investieren in Aktien und Anleihen von Organisationen, die sich auf einem CO2-Reduktionspfad befinden. Darunter sind oft Unternehmen mit aktuell noch hohen Emissionen und wenig nachhaltigen Produktangeboten. Solche Fonds sind nach meiner Auffassung keine konsequenten SDG-vereinbaren Fonds, zu denen ich nur Fonds mit Wertpapieren zähle, die in Bezug auf ihre Produkte und Services bereits möglichst nachhaltig sind.

Man könnte auch noch die 134 Anteilklassen mit „Engagement“ im Namen nutzen. Darauf verzichte ich aber ebenfalls (wenn nicht SDG oder Impact zusätzlich im Namen enthalten sind), denn für mich sollten die Emittenten der Wertpapiere im Fonds vor allem mit den SDG vereinbare Produkte und Services anbieten. Wenn dann noch Shareholder Engagement dazu kommt, ist das gut. Aber nur Engagement ohne SDG-Vereinbarkeit reicht mir für meinen Impactansatz nicht aus.

Ich interessiere mich vor allem für potenzielle Wettbewerber für den von mir beraten branchen- und länderdiversifizierten Aktienfonds. Deshalb betrachte ich hier keine länderspezifischen oder branchen- bzw. themenspezifischen Fonds, auch nicht solche für erneuerbare Energien oder Mikrofinanz. Ich klammere auch Anleihefonds mit Fokus auf grüne, soziale und andere nachhaltige Anleihen aus, sofern sie nicht SDG oder Impact im Namen nutzen.

Dafür füge ich Fonds hinzu, die dem Global Challenges Index bzw. dem nx25 Index folgen. Der Grund dafür ist, dass mein Fonds manchmal mit diesen Fonds verglichen wird.

Bei den ETFs finde ich nur einen Impact-ETF mit Umweltfokus sowie nur zwei SDG-diversifizierte-ETFs, die ich beide in der Detailanalyse berücksichtige.  

Insgesamt erhalte ich so 109 „Impactfonds“. 34 davon sind Anleihefonds, 7 sind Mischfonds und 3 sind Protected- bzw. Garantie- oder Hedgefonds. Damit bleiben 65 Aktienfonds übrig. 37 sind globale Aktienfonds, die grundsätzlich alle Unternehmensgrößen abdecken (Allcaps),12 sind überwiegend auf mittelgroße Unternehmen (Midcap) fokussierte globale Aktienfonds und 5 sind regional fokussierte Fonds. Bis auf zwei regionale Fonds enthalten diese nur relativ wenige Smallcaps, die in meinem Fonds vorherrschend sind. Damit bleiben 11 überregionale Smallcapfonds für den Detailvergleich übrig.

Detailvergleich von 11 globalen sogenannten Impactfonds mit Smallcapfokus

Idealerweise wird ein Nachhaltigkeitsvergleich der von mir selektieren Fonds mit kostenlos verfügbaren und damit extern einfach nachprüfbaren Daten durchgeführt. Die mir bekannten derartigen Datenbanken sind jedoch wenig transparent, nutzen nur Best-in-Class ESG Ratings und/oder enthalten nur einen Teil der mich interessierenden Fonds und Nachhaltgigkeitsdaten.

Deshalb habe ich die Fonds mit der kostenpflichtigen Datenbank von Clarity.ai analysiert. Diese hat den Vorteil, dass sie – mit Ausnahme eines neuen ETFs – für alle 11 Fonds detaillierte SDG- und ESG-Analysen ermöglicht. Dabei werden möglichst alle Aktien einzeln analysiert und dann auf Portfolioebene aggregiert.

Bei der Interpretation der Ergebnisse ist zu berücksichtigen, dass solche Nachhaltigkeitsanalysen je nach Datenanbieter und Stichtag (hier: Mitte Juni 2024) unterschiedliche Ergebnisse ergeben können. Zu beachten ist auch, dass die Ratings oft annähernd normalverteilt sind, d.h. die Streuung in der Mitte ziemlich hoch ist und Ausreißer selten sind. Das bedeutet, dass ein durchschnittliches ESG-Rating von 55 gegenüber 50 einen erheblichen Unterschied bedeuten kann.

Nur 1 diversifizierter konsequenter Smallcap-Impactfonds?

Ich analysiere sogenannte unerwünschte Aktivitäten, ESG-Ratings und SDG-Vereinbarkeiten. ESG-Ratings fassen dabei ESG-Risiken inklusive Kontroversen zusammen, ohne finanzielle Aspekte zu berücksichtigen. Dabei nutze ich ein Best-in-Universe Rating. Das bedeutet, dass Umwelt-, Sozial- und Unternehmensführungsrisiken aller über fünfundzwanzigtausend gerateten Unternehmen miteinander verglichen werden und nicht brancheninterne (Best-in-Class) Ratings genutzt werden. ESG-Risiken haben eine mögliche Bandbreite von 0 bis 100 und SDG-Vereinbarkeit wird über SDG-vereinbare Umsätze gemessen, von denen vorher unvereinbare Umsätze abgezogen werden (Netto-Umsatz-Ansatz).

Die hier analysierten 11 Fonds investieren insgesamt in über 200 Unternehmen mit einigen von 37 von mir unerwünschten und vermiedenen Aktivitäten. Das sind vor allem in Unternehmen, die Tierversuche durchführen. Dutzende weitere Unternehmen haben Abhängigkeiten von fossilen Brennstoffen oder Waffen.

Die SDG-(Netto-)Umsatzvereinbarkeit ist mir besonders wichtig. Am besten schneidet dabei der von mir beraten Fonds Futurevest Equities SDG R mit 88% ab. Drei weitere Fonds liegen um die 80%. Damit sind für mich nur diese 4 Smallcap-SDG Fonds konsequente Impactfonds. Zwei davon setzen vor allem auf erneuerbare Energien, einer auf Gesundheit und nur der von mir beratene Fonds auf beide und weitere Segmente.

Zwei weitere Fonds haben etwas über 50% SDG-Umsätze. Für mich überraschend ist, dass für 6 Fonds unter 50% netto SDG-Umsätze ausgewiesen wird. Ein Fonds mit „SDG-Engagement“ im Namen schneidet mit 7% am schlechtesten ab. Das Fondsmanagement will mit seinem Engagement dabei offensichtlich relativ wenig nachhaltige Investments nachhaltiger machen.

Impactfonds mit ESG-Risiken

In Bezug auf die ESG-Risiken ergeben sich ebenfalls erhebliche Unterschiede: Auch hier schneidet der von mir beratene Fonds mit einem durchschnittlichen ESG- Rating von 66 am besten ab. Bei Governance gibt es mit 71 einen noch besseren Fonds im Vergleich zu den 70 des Futurevest Fonds. Mit 62 bei Sozialrisiken und 68 von 100 Punkten bei Umweltrisiken scheidet der Futurevest-Fonds aber am besten ab.

Drei Fonds liegen bei den aggregierten ESG-Ratings aber auch bei Umwelt- und Sozialem unter 50 und haben damit überdurchschnittliche Risiken. Alle anderen Fonds liegen zwischen 53 und 60 bei den aggregierten Ratings. Beim Governancerating geht die Bandbreite nur von 52 bis 71, bei Umwelt von 40 bis 68 und bei Sozialem von 36 bis 63. Dabei liegen 9 Fonds bei den Sozialratings unter 50.

Auch bei den Emissionen gibt es starke Unterschiede. So reichen die umsatzgewichteten Scope 1 und Scope 2 Emissionen von 41 bis 1503 Tonnen mit fünf Fonds über 100 Tonnen. Mit 54 Tonnen hat der Futurevest-Fonds die drittniedrigsten Emissionen. Die Scope 3 Emissionen reichen von 88 bis 3.650 (Futurevest: 665) und scheinen damit kaum vergleichbar zu sein. Fonds, die bei ihren Investments auf Scope 3 Reporting drängen, wie ich das machen, werden bei solchen Vergleichen tendenziell benachteiligt.

Engagementdaten der Fonds werden in der Clarity.ai Datenbank nicht aufgeführt. Hierzu wäre eine relativ aufwändige separate Analyse nötig (Infos zu Futurevest siehe „Engagementreporting“ auf FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals).

Strengster Fonds mit guter Performance

In Bezug auf Ausschlüsse, SDG-Umsätze und ESG-Ratings ist nach diesen Daten der von mir beratenen Fonds der mit Abstand am konsequentesten nachhaltige. Das ist auch nachvollziehbar, denn ich nutze fast nur Nachhaltigkeitskriterien für die Aktienselektion.

Aber natürlich ist auch Performance wichtig. In Bezug auf traditionelle Smallcapfonds erreicht der von mir beratene Fonds seit der Auflage marktübliche Renditen und Risiken. Für die Analyse der selektieren Smallcap-Nachhaltigkeitsfonds nutze ich, sofern vorhanden, die thesaurierenden nicht-währungsgesicherten Retailanteilsklassen. Bezüglich der Renditen von Anfang 2022 bis Mitte Juni 2024 (der Futurevest-Fonds ist erst im August 2021 gestartet) liegt mein Fonds aktuell an der zweitbesten Position, direkt nach dem aus meiner Sicht wenig nachhaltigen SDG Engagementfonds. Im aktuellen Jahr liegt er sogar an erster Stelle. Und die Volatilität von etwa 13% ist auch relativ niedrig. Die Bandbreite der Performance recht dabei von +11% bis -59%.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Disclaimer

Dieser Beitrag ist von der Soehnholz ESG GmbH erstellt worden. Die Erstellerin übernimmt keine Gewähr für die Richtigkeit, Vollständigkeit und/oder Aktualität der zur Verfügung gestellten Inhalte. Die Informationen unterliegen deutschem Recht und richten sich ausschließlich an Investoren, die ihren Wohnsitz in Deutschland haben. Sie sind keine Finanzanalyse und nicht als Verkaufsangebot oder Aufforderung zur Abgabe eines Kauf- oder Zeichnungsangebots für Anteile der/s in dieser Unterlage dargestellten Aktie/Fonds zu verstehen und ersetzen nicht eine anleger- und anlagegerechte Beratung.

Die in diesem Artikel enthaltenen Informationen dienen ausschließlich zu Bildungs- und Informationszwecken. Sie sind weder als Aufforderung noch als Anreiz zum Kauf oder Verkauf eines Wertpapiers oder Finanzinstruments zu verstehen. Die in diesem Artikel enthaltenen Informationen sollten nicht als alleinige Quelle für Anlageentscheidungen verwendet werden.

Anlageentscheidungen sollten nur auf der Grundlage der aktuellen gesetzlichen Verkaufsunterlagen (Wesentliche Anlegerinformationen, Verkaufsprospekt und – sofern verfügbar – Jahres- und Halbjahresbericht) getroffen werden, die auch die allein maßgeblichen Anlagebedingungen enthalten.

Die Verkaufsunterlagen des Fonds werden bei der Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft (Monega Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH), der Verwahrstelle (Kreissparkasse Köln) und den Vertriebspartnern zur kostenlosen Ausgabe bereitgehalten. Die Verkaufsunterlagen sind zudem im Internet unter www.monega.de erhältlich. Die in dieser Unterlage zur Verfügung gestellten Inhalte dienen lediglich der allgemeinen Information und stellen keine Beratung oder sonstige Empfehlung dar. Die Kapitalanlage ist stets mit Risiken verbunden und kann zum Verlust des eingesetzten Kapitals führen. Vor einer etwaigen Anlageentscheidung sollten Sie eingehend prüfen, ob die Anlage für Ihre individuelle Situation und Ihre persönlichen Ziele geeignet ist.

Diese Unterlage enthält ggf. Informationen, die aus öffentlichen Quellen stammen, die die Erstellerin für verlässlich hält. Die dargestellten Inhalte, insbesondere die Darstellung von Strategien sowie deren Chancen und Risiken, können sich im Zeitverlauf ändern. Einschätzungen und Bewertungen reflektieren die Meinung der Erstellerin zum Zeitpunkt der Erstellung und können sich jederzeit ändern. Es ist nicht beabsichtigt, diese Unterlage laufend oder überhaupt zu aktualisieren. Sie stellt nur eine unverbindliche Momentaufnahme dar. Die Unterlage ist ausschließlich zur Information und zum persönlichen Gebrauch bestimmt. Jegliche nicht autorisierte Vervielfältigung und Weiterverbreitung ist untersagt.

ESG research criticism illustration with detective picture from Mariana Anatoneag from Pixabay

ESG research criticism? Researchpost #156

ESG research criticism: 13x new research on e-commerce, petrochemical and corruption problems, good and average sustainable performance, high transition risks, EU Taxonomy, Greenium, climate disaster effects, good investment constraints and private equity benchmarks (# shows SSRN full paper downloads as of Dec. 14th, 2023)

Social and ecological research (ESG research criticism)

Brown e-commerce: Product flows and GHG emissions associated with consumer returns in the EU by Rotem Roichman, Tamar Makov, Benjamin Sprecher, Vered Blass, and Tamar Meshulam as of Dec. 6th, 2023 (#5):“Building on a unique dataset covering over 630k returned apparel items in the EU … Our results indicate that 22%-44% of returned products never reach another consumer. Moreover, GHG emissions associated with the production and distribution of unused returns can be 2-14 times higher than post-return transport, packaging, and processing emissions combined“ (abstract).

US financed European petrochemicals: Toxic Footprints Europe by Planet Tracker as of December 2023: “Petrochemicals, which provide feedstocks for numerous products embedded in the global economy, carry a significant environmental footprint. One of the most important is toxic emissions. The financial market appears largely unconcerned by toxic emissions. This could be for several reasons: • perhaps because they are viewed as an unpriced pollutant or investors’ focus remains on carbon rather than other discharges or for those monitoring the plastic industry the spotlight is on plastic waste rather than toxic releases. In the Trilateral Chemical Region of Europe – an area consisting of Flanders (Belgium), North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany), Planet Tracker identified 1,093 facilities …. These facilities have released and transferred 125 million tonnes of chemicals since 2010 resulting in an estimated 24,640 years of healthy life being lost and 57 billion fractions of species being potentially affected. … BASF and Solvay are the most toxic polluters in the region, appearing in the top 5 of all four metrics analysed (physical releases, ecotoxicity, human toxicity and RSEI hazard).  The financiers behind these toxic footprints are led by BlackRock (5.4% of total investments by equity market value), Vanguard (5.2%) and JPMorgan Chase (3.6%). In terms of debt financing, Citigroup leads with 6.4% of total 10-year capital underwriting (including equity, loans and bonds), followed closely by JPMorgan Chase (6.3%) and Bank of America (5.2%)“ (p. 3).

Corruption Kills: Global Evidence from Natural Disasters by Serhan Cevik and João Tovar Jalles from the International Monetary Fund as of Nov. 2nd, 2023 (#12): “… we use a large panel of 135 countries over a long period spanning from 1980 to 2020 … The empirical analysis provides convincing evidence that widespread corruption increases the number of disaster-related deaths … the difference between the least and most corrupt countries in our sample implies a sixfold increase in the number of deaths per population caused by natural disaster in a given year. Our results show that this impact is stronger in developing countries than in advanced economies, highlighting the critical relationship between economic development and institutional capacity in strengthening good governance and combating corruption“ (p. 11/12).

Investment ESG research criticsm

Complex sustainability: Sustainability of financial institutions, firms, and investing by Bram van der Kroft as of Dec. 7th, 2023 (#22): “… financial institutions will take on additional risk in ways unpriced by regulators when facing financial constraints. Throughout the paper, we provide evidence that this additional risk-taking harms society as banks and insurance corporations acquire precisely those assets most affected in economic downturns” (p. 194) … “we find for over four thousand listed firms in 77 countries, as two-thirds of firms substantively improve their sustainable performance when institutional pressure is imprecise and increases, while one-third of firms are forced to start symbolically responding” (p. 196) … “One critical assumption underlining .. sustainable performance advances is that socially responsible investors can accurately identify sustainable firms. In practice, we show that these investors rely on inaccurate estimates of sustainable performance and accidentally “tilt the wrong firms” (p. 196) … “First, we find that MSCI IVA, FTSE, S&P, Sustainalytics, and Refinitiv ESG ratings do not reflect the sustainable performance of firms but solely capture their forward-looking sustainable aspirations. On average, these aspirations do not materialize up to 15 years in the future” (p. 84). …“Using unique identification in the real estate market and property-level sustainable performance information, we find that successful socially responsible engagement improves the sustainable performance of firms”(p. 196). My comment regarding the already published ESG rating criticism: Not all rating agencies work in the criticized way. My main ESG ratings supplier shifted its focuses to actual from planned sustainability (see my Researchpost #90 as of July 5th, 2022 relating to this paper: Tilting the Wrong Firms? How Inflated ESG Ratings Negate Socially Responsible Investing under Information Asymmetries).

ESG research criticism (1)? Comment and Replication: The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance by Andrew A. King as of Dec. 7th, 2023 (#186): “Do High Sustainability companies have better financial performance than their Low Sustainability counterparts? An extremely influential publication in Management Science, “The Impact of Corporate Sustainability on Organizational Processes and Performance”, claims that they do. … after reviewing the report, I conclude that its critical findings are unjustified by its own evidence: its main method appears unworkable, a key finding is miscalculated, important results are uninterpretable, and the sample is biased by survival and selection. … Despite considering estimates from thousands of models, I find no reliable evidence for the proposed link between sustainability and financial performance” (abstract). My comment: If there is no negative effect of sustainability on performance, shouldn’t all investors invest 100% sustainably

ESG research criticism (2)? Does Corporate Social Responsibility Increase Access to Finance? A Commentary on Cheng, Ioannou, and Serafeim (2014) by Andrew A. King as of Dec. 12th, 2023 (#7): “Does Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) facilitate access to finance? An extremely influential article claims that it does … I show that its research method precludes any insight on either access to finance or its connection to CSR. … I correct the original study by substituting more suitable measures and conducting further analysis. Contrary to the original report, I find no robust evidence for a link between CSR and access to finance” (abstract).

High transition risk: The pricing of climate transition risk in Europe’s equity market by Philippe Loyson, Rianne Luijendijk, and Sweder van Wijnbergen as of Aug. 22nd, 2023 (#46): “We assessed the effect of carbon intensity (tCO2/$M) on relative stock returns of clean versus polluting firms using a panel data set consisting of 1555 European companies over the period 2005-2019. We did not find empirical evidence that carbon risk is being priced in a diversified European equity portfolio, implying that investors do not seem to be aware of or at least do not require a risk premium for the risk they bear by investing in polluting companies“ (p. 32). My comment: Apparently, at least until 2019, there has not been enough sustainable investment to have a carbon risk impact

Green indicator confusion: Stronger Together: Exploring the EU Taxonomy as a Tool for Transition Planning by Clarity.ai and CDP as of Dec. 5th, 2023: „We find that out of the 1,700 NFRD (Sö: EU’s Non-Financial Reporting Directive) companies that published EU Taxonomy reports this year, around 600 identified their revenues and spending as part of their transition plans, and approximately 300 have validated science-based targets, both of which correlate to higher taxonomy alignment overall. There is a large dispersion of eligibility across companies within similar sectors which suggests that individual companies are involved in a variety of economic activities. This influences the low correlation between corporate GHG emissions and Taxonomy eligibility and alignment, as non-eligibility can be the result of exposure to either very high-impact or very low-impact economic activities. We observe that higher taxonomy alignment does not necessarily lead to lower carbon intensity when comparing companies within sectors. It is important to highlight that the largest source of corporate emissions might not always be well reflected in revenue shares” (p. 38). My comment: My experience is that the huge part of Scope 3 CO2 emissions and almost all non-CO2 emissions like methane are still seriously neglected by many corporations and investors

Greenium: Actions Speak Louder Than Words: The Effects of Green Commitment in the Corporate Bond Market by Peter Pope, Yang Wang, and Hui Xu as of Nov. 22nd, 2023 (#64): “This paper studies the effects of green bond issuance on the yield spreads of other conventional bonds from the same issuers. A traditional view of new bond issuance suggests that new bonds (whether green or brown) will increase secondary market bond yields if higher leverage increases default risk and dilutes creditors’ claim over assets. However, we find that the issuance of green bonds reduces conventional bond yield spreads by 8 basis points in secondary markets, on average. The effect is long-lasting (beyond two years) … An event study shows that the “bond” attribute of the green bonds still increases the yield spreads of outstanding conventional bonds by 1 basis point. It is the “green” attribute that lowers the yield spreads and ultimately dominates the net effects. … we show that socially responsible investors increase their demand for, and hold more, conventional bonds in their portfolios following the issuance of green bonds … we show that shareholders submit fewer environment-related proposals following green bond issuance. … Finally, our analysis highlights that green bonds give rise to positive real effects, though such effects are confined to the issuer“ (p. 42/43).

Costly values? Perceived Corporate Values by Stefano Pegoraro, Antonino Emanuele Rizzo, and Rafael Zambrana as of Dec. 4th, 2023 (#54): “…. analyzing the revealed preferences of values-oriented investors through their portfolio holdings … Using this measure of perceived corporate values, we show that values-oriented investors consider current and forward-looking information about corporate misconduct and controversies in their investment decisions. We also show that values-oriented investors sacrifice financial performance to align their portfolios with companies exhibiting better corporate values and lower legal risk” (p. 24). My comment: According to traditional investment theories, lower (ESG or other) risk should lead to lower returns. Any complaints about that?

Some investor impact: Propagation of climate disasters through ownership networks by Matthew Gustafson, Ai He, Ugur Lel, and Zhongling (Danny) Qin as of Dec. 5th, 2023 (#127): “We find that climate-change related disasters increase institutional investors’ awareness of climate change issues and accordingly these investors engage with the unaffected firms in their portfolios to influence corporate climate policies. In particular, we observe that such institutional investors vote in greater support of climate-related shareholder proposals at unaffected firms only after getting hit by climate change disasters in their portfolios and compared to other institutional investors. … In the long-run, firm-level GHG emissions and energy usage cumulatively decline at the same time as the unaffected firms adopt specific governance mechanisms such as linking their executive pay policies to GHG emission reductions, suggesting that changes in governance mechanisms potentially incentivize firms to internalize some of the negative externalities from their activities. … our results are more pronounced in brown industries“ (p. 26). My comment: When changing executive pay, negative effects have to be mitigated, see Wrong ESG bonus math?

Other investment research

Good constraints: Performance Attribution for Portfolio Constraints by Andrew W. Lo and Ruixun Zhang as of Nov. 1st, 2023 (#57): “While it is commonly believed that constraints can only decrease the expected utility of a portfolio, we show that this is only true when they are treated as static. … our methodology can be applied to common examples of constraints including the level of a particular characteristic, such as ESG scores, and exclusion constraints, such as divesting from sin stocks and energy stocks. Our results show that these constraints do not necessarily decrease the expected utility and returns of the portfolio, and can even contribute positively to portfolio performance when information contained in the constraints is sufficiently positively correlated with asset returns“ (p. 42). My comment: Traditional investment constraints are typically used to reduce risks. Looking at a actively managed funds, that does not always work as expected. Maybe responsible investment constraints are better than traditional ones?

PE Benchmark-Magic: Benchmarking Private Equity Portfolios: Evidence from Pension Funds by Niklas Augustin, Matteo Binfarè, and  Elyas D. Fermand as of Oct. 31st, 2023 (#245): “We document significant heterogeneity in the benchmarks used for US public pension fund private equity (PE) portfolios. … We show that general (Soe: investment) consultant turnover predicts changes in PE benchmarks. … we find that public pension funds only beat their PE benchmarks about 50% of the time, that they tend to use public market benchmark indices that underperform private market benchmark indices, and that their benchmarks have become easier to beat over the last 20 years“ (abstract).

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Advert for German investors

Sponsor my research by investing in and/or recommending my global small/midcap mutual fund (SFDR Art. 9). The fund focuses on social SDGs and uses separate E, S and G best-in-universe minimum ratings and broad shareholder engagement with currently 26 of 30 companies: FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R – DE000A2P37T6 – A2P37T or Noch eine Fondsboutique? – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com)

SDG rating confusion illustration with picture from GoranH from pixabay

SDG rating confusion: Researchpost #152

SDG rating confusion: 13x new research on emissions, life expectancy, green bonds, physical risks and transition, environmental information, private equity ESG, SDG ratings, bond and equity factors, fraud, health-wealth relations, LLM financial analysts (# shows the number of full paper SSRN downloads as of Nov. 16th, 2023)

Ecological and social research (SDG rating confusion)

Too hot: The State of Climate Action: Major Course Correction Needed from +1.5% to −7% Annual Emissions by the World Economic Forum and The Boston Consulting Group as of November 2023: “As 1.5°C is slipping out of reach, achieving it now calls for a 7% annual emissions reduction, more than the climate reduction impact from COVID-19 and against the current trend of a 1.5% annual increase. … Only 35% of emissions are covered by a national net-zero commitment by 2050, and only 7% by countries that complement bold targets with ambitious policies. Fewer than 20% of the world’s top 1,000 companies have set 1.5°C science-based targets, and, based on the Net Zero Tracker, fewer than 10% also have comprehensive public transition plans. Technologies that are economically attractive now or will be in the near future can only achieve just over half of the emissions reductions needed to reach 1.5°C. … More than half of climate funding needs are still unmet, with critical gaps in early technologies and infrastructure particularly acute, and the climate funding gap twice as large in developing economies as in developed ones” (p. 4).

Longer lifes: The Long-run Effect of Air Pollution on Survival by Tatyana Deryugina and Julian Reif as of Nov. 13th, 2023 (#8): “We show that the short-run mortality effects of acute SO2 exposure can be decomposed into two distinct phenomena: mortality displacement, where exposure kills frail individuals with short counterfactual life expectancies, and accelerated aging, where mortality continues to increase after exposure has ceased. … we calculate that a permanent, ten percent decrease in air pollution exposure would improve life expectancy by 1.2–1.3 years … our estimates imply that value of reducing pollution exposure may be substantially larger than has previously been recognized“ (p. 37).

Responsible investing research (SDG rating confusion)

Green bond limits: Decoding Corporate Green Bonds: What Issuers Do With the Money and Their Real Impact by Yufeng Mao as of Nov. 8th, 2023 (#157): “This paper reveals a distinct motivation for issuing green bonds compared to conventional bonds. Proceeds from green bonds remain as cash for longer periods, largely owing to the time required to identify eligible projects. Contrary to the notion of fungibility, my results indicate that they neither lead to more new investments than conventional bonds nor are used in apparent green-washing. … firms issuing green bonds show improved environmental performance, particularly in the reduction of GHG intensity. However, this improvement appears not to stem from incremental green investments facilitated by green bonds but rather from issuers that would have pursued green initiatives regardless” (p. 44).

Physical risk costs: The cost of maladapted capital: Stock returns, physical climate risk and adaptation by Chiara Colesanti Senni and Skand Goel as of July 23rd, 2023 (#48): “Using S&P Global Sustainable data on Physical Risk and measures of adaptability to physical risk from S&P Global Corporate Sustainability Assessment, we find evidence that higher physical risk is associated with higher expected returns. However, this risk premium diminishes with increased adaptability, signifying that risk management through adaptation reduces a company’s cost of capital. Notably, this adaptability-driven risk discount is more pronounced for high levels of physical risk, reflecting market incentives for efficient adaptation” (abstract).

Carbon-free distance: Carbon-Transition Risk and Net-Zero Portfolios by Gino Cenedese, Shangqi Han, and Marcin Kacperczyk as of Oct. 5th, 2023 (#493): “…. using a novel measure of distance-to-exit (DT E) … we show that companies that are more exposed to exit from net-zero portfolios have lower values and require higher returns from investors holding them. This result is economically large and is consistent with the view that DT E are useful measures of transition risk. Notably, we show that DT E capture distinct variation to that captured by previously used measures based on corporate carbon emissions. Distinct from these, they capture information that is forward-looking and is grounded in climate science“ (p. 29)

Attention, outsiders: Do Insiders Profit from Public Environmental Information? Evidence from Insider Trading by Sadok El Ghoul, Zhengwei Fu, Omrane Guedhami, and Yongwon Kim as of Oct. 19th, 2023 (#26): “We provide evidence that insiders sell their stocks profitably based on publicly available information on environmental costs. Further analysis indicates that these results become more pronounced when the search frequency for environmental information in Google is low, in countries governed by left-leaning governments, and in countries where investor protection is weak. These results … suggest that investor inattention and investor protection are key drivers of insider trading performance“ (abstract).

PE ESG boost: ESG Footprints in Private Equity Portfolios: Unpacking Management Instruments and Financial Performance by Noah Bani-Harounia, Ulrich Hommel, and Falko Paetzold as of Nr. 8th, 2023 (#13): “Based on data covering 206 buyout funds for the time period 2010-2022, … Improving fund-level ESG footprints by 50% explains a statistically and economically significant net IRR increase of up to 12.4% over a fund’s life cycle. The outcome is linked to specific ESG-management instruments of private equity investors, such as centralised ESG management and ESG value enhancement plans, while no significant effect is recorded for other measures, such as ESG reporting frequencies and ESG impact controlling” (abstract).

SDG rating confusion: “In partnership for the goals”? The (dis)agreement of SDG ratings by Tobias Bauckloh, Juris Dobrick, André Höck, Sebastian Utz, and Marcus Wagner as of May 31st, 2023 (#59): „This paper analyzes the (dis)agreement of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ratings across different rating providers and implications for portfolio management. It documents a considerable level of disagreement that is particularly high for large companies and for companies from the Healthcare and the Basic Materials sector. In general, the sector in which the companies are mainly active explains a large part of the variation in disagreement measures of the SDG ratings. Moreover, we document different return characteristics and risk factor exposures of portfolios sorted according to SDG ratings of different rating providers” (abstract). My comment: I expect SDG-Risk-Ratings to have little additional value to ESG-Ratings. I prefer to use SDG-related revenues or Capex in addition to ESG-Ratings to avoid SDG rating confusion (see e.g. Divestments: 49 bei 30 Aktien meines Artikel 9 Fonds – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com)).

Other investment research

Equity factors: Factor Zoo (.zip) by Alexander Swade, Matthias X. Hanauer, Harald Lohre and David Blitz from Robeco as of Nov. 15th, 2023 (#2546): “Using a comprehensive set of 153 U.S. equity factors, we find that a set of 10 to 20 factors spans the entire factor zoo, depending on the selected statistical significance level. This implies that most candidate factors are redundant but also that academic factor models, which typically contain just three to six factors, are too narrowly defined. When repeating the factor selection to factors as they become available over an expanding window, we find that newly published factors sometimes supersede older factor definitions, emphasizing the relevance of continuous factor innovation based on new insights or newly available data. However, the identified factor style clusters are quite persistent, emphasizing the relevance of diversification across factor styles” (p. 20/21). My comment: Without good (almost impossible) forecasts which factors will outperform, outperforming factor investing is difficult.

Bond factors: Corporate Bond Factors: Replication Failures and a New Framework by Jens Dick-Nielsen, Peter Feldhütter, Lasse Heje Pedersen, and Christian Stolborg as of Oct. 26th, 2023 (#1257): “Many corporate bond factors cannot be reproduced even when attempting to use the methodology of the corresponding paper. More broadly, even factors that can be reproduced should be questioned, since the corporate bond literature is based on data full of errors. … we show that the majority of corporate bond factors from the literature fail to replicate, but a minority of factors remain significant. Further, analyzing corporate bond factors based on equity signals, we find a number of significant new factors“ (p. 27/28). My comment: Same as above: Without good (almost impossible) forecasts which factors will outperform, outperforming factor investing is difficult.

Big fraud? How pervasive is corporate fraud? by Alexander Dyck, Adair Morse, and Luigi Zingales as of Oct. 2nd, 2023 (#120): “… we use the natural experiment provided by the sudden demise of a major auditing firm, Arthur Andersen, to infer the fraction of corporate fraud that goes undetected. This detection likelihood is essential to quantify the pervasiveness of corporate fraud in the United States and to assess the costs that this fraud imposes on investors. We find that two out of three corporate frauds go undetected, implying that, pre Sox, 41% of large public firms were misreporting their financial accounts in a material way and 10% of the firms were committing securities fraud, imposing an annual cost of $254 billion on investors“ (p. 31). My comment: It would be interesting to see the relationship between governance-ratings and fraud.

Health-Wealth-Gap: Health Heterogeneity, Portfolio Choice and Wealth Inequality by Juergen Jung and Chung Tran as of Oct. 18th, 2023 (#28): “… the early exposure to health shocks has strong and long-lasting impacts on the portfolio choice of households and the observed wealth gap among households at retirement age. … as sicker individuals often forgo investing in risky assets that pay higher returns in the long-run. This health-wealth portfolio channel amplifies wealth concentration across groups and over the lifecycle. … In the absence of the health-wealth portfolio channel, the observed wealth gap at retirement is 40–50 percent smaller. In addition, we provide new insights into the social benefit of health insurance. The expansion of public or private health insurance in the US can reduce wealth inequality via mitigating exposure to health expenditure shocks and thereby allow households to make riskier investment choices with higher long-term returns” (p. 27/28).

LLM financial analysts: Large Language Models and Financial Market Sentiment by Shaun A. Bond, Hayden Klok, and Min Zhu as of Oct. 23rd, 2023 (#257): “… we use ChatGPT and BARD to recall daily news summaries related to the S&P 500 Index, classify sentiments from these texts, and use these sentiments to forecast future index returns. … we demonstrate ChatGPT and BARD can recall and classify summary market-level financial text from the perspective of a financial analyst. … we show these sentiments proxy for aggregate investor sentiment and forecast future return reversals of the S&P 500 Index … we provide evidence that incorporating ChatGPT-derived sentiments leads to superior economic performance compared to portfolios that incorporate sentiments from BARD, simpler transformer models, and traditional dictionary approaches. LLMs have superior potential to process contextual information around specific topics or themes beyond that of simpler transformer models and context-indifferent word frequency methods. This greater context awareness leads to better identification of aggregate market sentiment, and superior short-term economic performance when taken into account. Further, results suggest LLMs can identify different aspects of sentiment from text, such as information on different frequencies, and the presence of persistent effects“ (p. 45). My comment see AI: Wie können nachhaltige AnlegerInnen profitieren? – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com) or How can sustainable investors benefit from artificial intelligence? – GITEX Impact – Leading ESG Event 2023

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Liquid impact advert for German investors

Sponsor my research by investing in and/or recommending my global small/midcap mutual fund (SFDR Art. 9). The fund focuses on social SDGs and uses separate E, S and G best-in-universe minimum ratings and broad shareholder engagement with currently 24 of 30 companies: FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R – DE000A2P37T6 – A2P37T or Noch eine Fondsboutique? – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com)

Supplier Engagement table by CAF as example

Supplier engagement – Opinion post #211

Supplier engagement is my term for shareholder engagement with the goal to address suppliers either directly or indirectly. I provide an overview of current scientific research regarding supplier engagement. I also explain my respective recommendations to the companies I am invested in. Supplier engagement can be very powerful.

The other two stakeholder groups which I address with my “leveraged shareholder engagement” are customers and employees (compare HR-ESG shareholder engagement: Opinion-Post #210 – Responsible Investment Research Blog (prof-soehnholz.com)).

Supplier emissions can be very high

Supplier relations have become much talked about in recent years. Climate change is one of the reasons. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are one of the prime shareholder concerns if they are interested in environmental topics. To compare more or less vertically integrated companies with their competitors, evaluating GHG emissions of suppliers is important. Often, GHG emissions of suppliers (part of so-called scope 3) are much higher than the (scope 1 and 2) emissions of the analyzed company itself.

Relevant research (1): Managing climate change risks in global supply chains: a review and research agenda by Abhijeet Ghadge, Hendrik Wurtmann and Stefan Seuring as of June 13th, 2022: “The research … captures a comprehensive picture of climate change and associated phenomenon in terms of sources, consequences, control drivers, and mitigation mechanisms. … The study contributes to practice by providing visibility into the industry sectors most likely to be impacted; their complex association with other supply chain networks. The drivers, barriers, and strategies for climate change mitigation are particularly helpful to practitioners for better managing human-induced risks …” (p. 59).

Supply chain becomes more important for ESG-analyses

COVID and geopolitical changes such as the Russian attack on the Ukraine also showed that the management of supply chains is crucial for many companies. Even before, many supplier related incidents such as the Foxconn/Apple discussions had significant effects on company ESG perceptions and potentially also on ESG-ratings. Also, supply chains are becoming more in many countries.

Relevant research (2): ESG Shocks in Global Supply Chains by Emilio Bisetti, Guoman She, and Alminas Zaldokas as of Sept. 6th, 2023: “We show that U.S. firms cut imports by 29.9% and are 4.3% more likely to terminate a trade relationship when their international suppliers experience environmental and social (E&S) incidents. These trade cuts are larger for publicly listed U.S. importers facing high E&S investor pressure and lead to cross-country supplier reallocation …. Larger trade cuts around the scandal result in higher supplier E&S scores in subsequent years, and in the eventual resumption of trade” (abstract).

On the positive side, many suppliers have great knowhow and can help their clients to become better in ESG-terms.

Relevant research (3): Stakeholder Engagement by Brett McDonnell as of Nov. 1st, 2022t:  “Suppliers, like employees, also provide inputs to the production process of companies. Retaining the loyalty of suppliers may be important for companies, depending in part on how firm-specific inputs are. Where inputs are fungible, they can be bought on the market for the prevailing market price, but where they are firm-specific, the buying firm will have more trouble replacing a supplier that decides to withdraw. Suppliers have information about the quality of what they supply, and about conditions which may affect future availability and prices” (p. 8).

Supplier engagement: How investors can indirectly engage

Investors in publicly listed companies do probably not want to directly with the often many important suppliers of their portfolios companies. But they can indirectly leverage the knowhow and energy of suppliers. Here is what Brett McDonnell suggests:

Relevant research (4): Stakeholder Governance as Governance by Stakeholders by Brett McDonnell as of August 31st, 2023: “… American stakeholder engagement is limited to soliciting (and on occasion responding to) the opinions of employees, customers, suppliers, and others. True stakeholder governance would involve these groups in actively making corporate decisions. I have suggested various ways we could do this. The focus should be on employees, who could be empowered via board representation, works councils, and unions. Other stakeholders could be less fully empowered through councils, advisory at first but potentially given power to nominate or even elect directors” (p. 19).

In my opinion, too, advisory councils of suppliers could be helpful to improve listed companies. I prefer other forms of ESG engagement with suppliers, though. First, companies could regularly survey most of their direct and even some important indirect suppliers in a regular way regarding ESG topics. With regular surveys companies can find out how happy their suppliers are with the companies ESG activities and ESG-improvement ideas by suppliers can be collected.

Example (1): Surveys from Stakeholders Make Good Business Sense by Terrie Nolinske from the National Business Research Institute (no date) mentions The Body Shop and Michelin who use supplier surveys.

Example (2): AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard from Accountability as of 2015 “provides a … practical framework to implement stakeholder engagement and … Describes how to integrate stakeholder engagement with an organization’s governance, strategy, and operations”.

I specifically suggest to regularly ask suppliers the following questions: 1) “How satisfied are you with the environmental, social and corporate governance activities of company XYZ?” and 2) “Which environmental, social and corporate governance improvements do you suggest to company XYZ?”.

Systematic supplier engagement using ESG evaluations

In my view, even more important to improve the full supply chain ESG-profile is that companies regularly, broadly and independently evaluate the ESG-quality of their suppliers. Independent ESG-ratings can be very useful for that purpose, since they systematically cover many environmental, social and governance aspects.

I try to invest in the 30 most sustainable publicly listed companies globally (see Active or impact investing? – (prof-soehnholz.com)), but even most of these companies do not have such a supplier ESG evaluation process. Here are the two best examples of my portfolios companies:

Supplier ESG evaluation (1): Watts Water Sustainability Report 2022 p. 63: “In 2022, we met our goal of reviewing suppliers representing approximately 30% of our global annual spend using the Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) ESG Rating Service. The service is a web-based ratings platform that assesses the ESG operations of suppliers across 70 key topics, including through peer benchmarking and using leading sustainability frameworks …. Through our expanded use of this tool, we gained increased insight into our suppliers’ sustainability practices, including that suppliers making up one-sixth of the global spend we assessed already have advanced ESG systems in place”.

Supplier ESG evaluation (2): CAFs 2022 Sustainability Report: “… the evaluation effort focuses on 349 target suppliers out of a total of approximately 6,000 suppliers. The evaluations are carried out by Ecovadis …. Ecovadis adapts the evaluation questionnaire to each supplier based on the locations in which it operates, its sector and its size to evaluate 21 aspects of sustainability alligned with the most demanding international norms, regulations and standards …. Suppliers‘ responses are evaluated by specialised analysts … This analysis results in a general rating with a maximum score of 100 points …. If the result of an evaluation does not meet the requirements established by CAF (a general score of 45 out of 100 in sustainability management), the supplier is required to implement an action plan to improve the weaknesses identified. If the supplier does not raise its assessment to acceptable levels or does not show a commitment to improve, it is audited by experts in the field” (p. 83).

“By the end of 2022, the activities … have assessed … 78% of the prioritised suppliers (118 business groups) …. The assessed suppliers have an average overall rating of 58.6 out of 100 … which is 13 percentage points higher than the average of all suppliers assessed by Ecovadis worldwide (45/100). In addition, 71% of CAF suppliers reassessed in the last year improved their general rating … As a result of these assessments it has also been identified that 2% of the Group’s total purchases are made from suppliers with average or lower sustainability management and an improvement plan has been agreed with all of them”(p. 84).

The picture of my blogpost summarises the results of the 2022 supplier assessment campaign of one of my portfolio companies: Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles (CAF Sustainability Report 2022, p. 85):

But even Watts Water and CAF currently only cover a relatively small share of their suppliers with these evaluations.

Better fewer suppliers?

Such a sustainability-oriented supplier evaluation approach could result in fewer and therefore more important suppliers.

Relevant research (5): A Supply Chain Sourcing Model at the Interface of Operations and Sustainability by Gang Li and Yu A. Xia as of Aug. 25th, 2023: “This research investigates … how to integrate sustainability with sourcing planning decisions and how to address the challenges associated with the integration, such as the balance between operational factors and sustainability factors and the quantitative evaluation of sustainability performance. … Our model suggests that while increasing the number of suppliers may cause additional sustainability risk in supply chain management, decreasing the supply base will decrease the production capacity and increase the risk of delivery delay. Therefore, a firm should carefully set up its global sourcing network with only a limited number of selected suppliers. This finding is particularly true when the focus of sourcing planning gradually moves away from decisions based solely on cost to those seeking excellence in both supply chain sustainability and cost performance“ (p. 32).

Supplier engagement: Powerful supplier ESG disclosures

I think that is very important to make the supplier engagement activities transparent. Only transparent activities can be controlled by stakeholders. It is very useful for stakeholders, too, to know the identities of the major suppliers.

Relevant research (6):  Green Image in Supply Chains: Selective Disclosure of Corporate Suppliers by Yilin Shi, Jing Wu, and Yu Zhang as of Sept. 9th, 2022 (#2015): “We uncover robust empirical evidence showing that listed firms selectively disclose environmentally friendly suppliers while selectively not disclosing suppliers with poor environmental performance, i.e., they conduct supply chain greenwashing. This is a prevalent behavior in the sample of more than 40 major countries or regions around the world that we study. … we find that customer firms that face more competitive pressure, care more about brand image and reputation, and have larger shares of institutional holdings are more likely to conduct such selective disclosure. … we find that information transparency reduces such behavior. Finally, we study the outcomes of selectively disclosing green suppliers and find that customers benefit from the practice in terms of sales, profitability, and market valuation“ (p. 22/24). 

A supplier engagement proposal and first engagement experiences

Based on my engagement policy (Shareholder engagement: 21 science based theses and an action plan – (prof-soehnholz.com)), I try to make it as simple as possible for my portfolio companies to implement my suggestions. Comprehensive and regular supplier ESG surveys would be a rather simple and low-cost approach and I certainly encourage them.

Given the importance of the supply chain for ESG-topics and the risks of greenwashing, I especially recommend a more demanding supplier ESG-rating approach to all my portfolio companies. Specifically, I tell them: “Favoring suppliers with better overall/comprehensive ESG scores is probably the way to go. Reporting aggregated information such as percentage of suppliers with XYZ ESG-scores can be one first step regarding transparency”. I also inform them about current relevant research and the two examples mentioned above.

No supplier engagement results yet

I started my respective engagement activities only at the end of 2022. Some companies answered that they like my suggestions and plan to analyze them, but I cannot report implementations so far (compare 230831_FutureVest_Engagementreport-2830ab605a502648339b4f8f58fa2ee2dce539ef.pdf).

I am only a small investors and cooperative engagement can me more powerful. Unfortunately, my attempts for cooperative engagement with other investors have not been fruitful yet. One reason is that I could only find very few sustainable investment funds with a dedicated small-and midcap focus such as mine. With the few such funds I have typically very little company overlap. The asset managers and the shareholder organizations which I have asked so far want to cooperate with larger asset managers and not with such a small entity as mine.

Nevertheless, I will continue to ask my portfolio companies for such stakeholder engagements and the publication of their results. I am confident, that at least a few companies will adopt such surveys and evaluations and thus position themselves even more as ESG-leaders. Research such as “A Test of Stakeholder Governance” by Stavros Gadinis and Amelia Miazad as of Aug. 25th, 2021 is one of the reasons for optimism on my part. And, maybe, with publications such as this blog post, I can encourage other companies, investors etc. to support such broad stakeholder engagement activities as well.

Additional research:

Bringing ESG Accountability to Global Supply Chains as of Oct. 30th, 2023 by Ingrid Cornander, Michael Jonas, and Daniel Weise from The Boston Consulting Group

A Procurement Advantage in Disruptive Times: New Perspectives on ESG Strategy and Firm Performance by Wenting Li and Yimin Wang as of May 8th,2024