Archiv der Kategorie: Impact

Illiquid impact illustration from Pixabay by Kohji Asakawa

Illiquid impact investments: Researchpost 220

Illiquid impact illustration from Pixabay by Kohji Asakawa

11x new research on green/brown ideology, tax pollution, solar risks, brown sovereign risk, green backtest risk, green supplier engagement, greening M&A, biodiversity startups, impact private equity, liquid impact, SDG revenues (# shows the number of SSRN full paper downloads as of April 3rd, 2025)

Ecological Research

Green/brown ideology: Public Support for Environmental Regulation: When Ideology Trumps Knowledge by Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt and Max R. P. Grossmann as of April 1st, 2025 (#8) “When environmental regulations are unpopular, policymakers often attribute resistance to information frictions and poor communication. We test this idea in the context of a major climate policy: Germany’s Heating Law of 2023, which mandates the phase-out of fossil fuel heating. … Despite successfully increasing factual knowledge, information provision has no significant effect on intended technology adoption, policy support, or incentivized measures of climate preferences. Instead, pre-existing environmental preferences and demographic characteristics emerge as the key predictors of responses to the regulation. A feeling that existing systems still work well and cost considerations dominate fossil fuel users’ stated reasons for non-adoption, while independence from fossil fuels and perceived contributions to the common good drive adoption among switchers. Our findings suggest that opposition to climate policy stems from fundamental preference heterogeneity rather than information frictions“ (abstract).

Tax pollution: Dirty Taxes: Corporate Taxes and Air Pollution by …. Thilo Erbertseder, Martin Jacob, Constance Kehne, and Hannes Taubenböck as of March 11th, 2025 (#128): “… We use satellite data on nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels and exploit local business tax variation in Germany over 2008-2020. We find that a 1% tax increase leads to 0.15% higher NO2 levels. … This increase in pollution can be explained by higher taxes preventing firms from shifting towards cleaner assets“ (abstract).

Sustainable investment research (in: Illiquid impact)

Solar risks: Solar Flare Up: Systemic Organizational Risk in the Residential Solar Industry by David F. Larcker and Brian Tayan as of Dec. 3rd, 2024 (#87): “… A systemic risk is one in which the system itself — through its incentives, structure, and culture — encourages or fails to detect behavior contrary to what is intended by those who developed or manage the system. To illustrate the potential for systemic organizational risk to arise, we consider the curious case of the residential solar industry, in which complex financing, generous tax credits, generous sales commissions, and uncertain costs — coupled with widespread public interest in the adoption of solar — have combined to create an incredibly complex industry with multiple points of potential breakdown” (abstract) … iSun, a publicly traded solar company based in Vermont, has been accused of misappropriating funds; the company went bankrupt in 2024 and delisted from the NASDAQ. One firm estimates that as many as 75 percent of solar companies in California face bankruptcy because of the state’s revision of net-metering rules. Major publicly traded companies, such as Sunrun and Sunnova, have seen their stock prices fall in excess of 80 percent from their peak. Recently, the external auditor for SunPower resigned because the company did not have the “internal controls necessary to develop reliable financial statements” and therefore it was “unwilling to be associated with the financial statements prepared by management.” The company subsequently declared bankruptcy“ (p. 5). My comment: See Neues Research: Systemische Risiken von Solarinvestments | CAPinside

Brown sovereign risk: Creditworthy: do climate change risks matter for sovereign credit ratings? By Lorenzo Cappiello, Gianluigi Ferrucci, Angela Maddaloni, and Veronica Veggente from the European Central Bank as of March 26th, 2025 (#32): “… higher temperature anomalies and more frequent natural disasters—key indicators of physical risk—are associated with lower credit ratings. In contrast, transition risk factors do not appear to be systematically integrated into credit ratings throughout the entire sample period. … Additionally, more ambitious CO2 emission reduction targets and actual reductions in CO2 emission intensities are associated with higher ratings post-Paris Agreement, … countries with high levels of debt and those heavily reliant on fossil fuel revenues tend to receive lower ratings after the Paris Agreement …“ (abstract). My comment: I use bonds of multilateral development banks instead of sovereign bonds for my portfolios.

Green backtest risk: Performance of sustainable indices: Are there differences between pre- and post-inception by Niklas Kestler and Hendrik Scholz as of April 1st, 2025 (#14) “… this paper conducts a comprehensive analysis of 141 sustainable indices … There is evidence that the pre-inception period seems to perform better than the post-inception period. This is especially visible for Smart-Beta-ESG and Thematic-ESG indices. … Moreover, we find some indication of outperformance for Broad-ESG indices“ (p. 13/14). My comment: Since many years, I do not use backtests anymore

Green supplier engagement: Climate Disclosures and Decarbonization along the Supply Chain by Pietro Bonetti, Yang (Ellen) En, Igor Kadach, and Gaizka Ormazabal as of Dec. 26th, 2024 (#338): „… Our … exploit the unique features of the CDP, the world-leading platform of corporate climate risk disclosures. We find a strong positive association between customer and supplier disclosures to the CDP. … We also observe that supplier CDP disclosures likely induced by customers’ demand are associated with subsequent lower carbon emissions. Moreover, customers are more (less) likely to terminate relationships with the most (least) polluting suppliers and with those not meeting their disclosure demands”. My comment: With my shareholder engagement I ask to publish GHG Scope 3 emissions (including suppliers) and I also ask for independent ESG-Scoring of all significant suppliers (which typically prominently include GHG-effects), see Shareholder engagement: 21 science based theses and an action plan

Greening M&A: Environmental Disclosure, Regulatory Pressure, and Sustainable Investment: Evidence from Mergers and Acquisitions by Kee-Hong Bae, Hamdi Driss, and Nan Xiong as of April 1st, 2025 (#1): “We investigate how environmental disclosure regulations influence firms’ mergers and acquisitions. Leveraging the staggered adoption of 26 environmental disclosure mandates across the globe as shocks that pressure companies to improve their environmental performance, we find that 1) acquirers increasingly target firms with better environmental performance following the mandates, 2) these acquirers realize positive short-term and long-term abnormal stock returns, and 3) they achieve substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and environmental damage costs post-acquisition” (abstract). My comment: This speaks against the often-used hypothesis, that public companies sell brown businesses to private companies which may not care much about environmental issues.

Biodiversity startups: Biodiversity Entrepreneurship by Sean Cao, G. Andrew Karolyi, William W. Xiong, and Hui Xu as of March 31st, 2025 (#14) “… we identify 630 biodiversity-linked start-ups in PitchBook and compare their financing dynamics to other ventures. We find biodiversity start-ups raise less capital but attract a broader coalition of investors, including … mission-aligned impact funds and public institutions (“values-driven investors”). Values investors provide incremental capital rather than substituting value investors, but funding gaps persist. …” (abstract).

Illiquid impact: Impact Investing and Worker Outcomes by Josh Lerner, Markus Lithell, and Gordon M. Phillips as of March 26th, 2025 (#199): “… Consistent with earlier studies, impact investors are more likely than other private equity firms to fund businesses in economically disadvantaged areas, and the performance of these companies lags behind those held by traditional private investors. We show that post funding impact-backed firms are more likely to hire minorities, unskilled workers, and individuals with lower historical earnings, perhaps reflecting the higher representation of minorities in top positions. They also allocate wage increases more favorably to minorities and rank-and-file workers than VC-backed firms“ (abstract).

SDG-Revenues: ESG rating providers: Survey on impact ratings by the DVFA Sustainability Committee as of April 1st, 2025: „Impact ratings are often the basis for calculating the proportion of sustainable investments in investment funds. …10 of the 18 rating providers surveyed answered our questions about their impact ratings in the period from September to November 2024. … The participants in the survey have a combined market share of up to 90% for sustainability data and ratings … The approach of the various rating providers shows, in addition to a large number of similarities, some significant differences…. almost all providers use the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as the basis for their rating system … It turns out that almost all providers place a strong focus on the impact of a company’s products and services. The impact is often quantified on the basis of sales data. … Three providers determine impact purely on a company basis and three providers purely on an activity basis. A further three calculate both company and activity-based impact. This reflects the DVFA’s impression that neither investors nor regulators have developed a uniform standard for measuring sustainable investments. …“ My comment: I am a member of the DVFA Sustainability Committee (Translated with the free version of DeepL.com)

German impact research studies (in: Illiquid impact)

SDG-Umsätze: ESG-Ratinganbieter: Befragung zu Impact-Ratings vom DVFA-Fachausschuss Sustainability vom 1. April 2025: „Impact-Ratings sind oftmals die Grundlage zur Berechnung des Anteils nachhaltiger Investitionen in In vestmentfonds. …10 der 18 befragen Ratinganbieter beantworteten im Zeitraum von September bis November 2024 unsere Fragen zu ihren Impact-Ratings. … Die Teilnehmer der Umfrage haben gemeinsam einen Marktanteil bei Nachhaltigkeitsdaten und -ratings von bis zu 90 % … Die Vorgehensweise der verschiedenen Ratinganbieter zeigt, neben einer Vielzahl von Gemeinsamkeiten, einige wesentliche Unterschiede…. nahezu alle Anbieter nutzen die UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) als Grundlage für ihr Bewertungssystem … Es zeigt sich, dass fast alle Anbieter einen starken Fokus auf die Wirkung der Produkte und Dienstleistungen eines Unternehmens legen. Dabei wird die Wirkung oft anhand von Umsatzdaten quantifiziert. … Drei Anbieter ermitteln Impact rein unternehmensbasiert und drei Anbieter rein aktivitätsbasiert. Weitere drei ermitteln gleichermaßen unternehmens- und aktivitätsbasiert. Das spiegelt den Eindruck der DVFA wider, dass weder bei Investoren noch bei Regulierern ein einheitlicher Standard zur Messung der nachhaltigen Investitionen entwickelt hat. …“ Mein Kommentar: Ich bin  Mitglied des DVFA Fachausschusses Sustainability. Mein Ansatz siehe auch SDG-Umsätze: Die wichtigste Nachhaltigkeitskennzahl

Liquid impact: Wirkungen der nachhaltigen Kapitalanlage von Rolf Häßler von NKI Research vom März 2025: „… Ergebnisse der Befragung der größten börsennotierten Unternehmen im deutschsprachigen Raum … 41,9 % der befragten Unternehmen stellen fest, dass die Anforderungen der nachhaltigen Kapitalmarktakteure einen sehr oder eher großen Einfluss auf ihre Gesamtstrategie haben – Tendenz steigend. Noch höher ist dieser Einfluss mit Blick auf Ziele und Strategie im ESG-Management (58,1 %) und die konkreten Maßnahmen (67,8 %). Im Hinblick auf den Einfluss der verschiedenen ESG-Anlagestrategien bewerten die Unternehmen die beiden Dialogstrategien als besonders einflussreich“ (S. 3). My comment: Impact is possible even with exchange-listed investments (for my shareholder engagement activities see e.g. My shareholder engagement: Failures, successes and adaption)

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

Werbung (in: Illiquid impact)

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in den von mir beratenen globalen Small-/Mid-Cap-Investmentfonds (siehe FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R) investieren und/oder ihn empfehlen.

Der Fonds konzentriert sich auf die UN-Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung mit durchschnittlich einzigartig hohen 99% SDG-vereinbaren Umsätzen der Portfoliounternehmen und sehr hohen E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Scores sowie einem besonders umfangreichen Aktionärsengagement bei 29 von 30 Unternehmen (siehe auch My fund).

Zum Vergleich: Ein traditioneller globaler Small-Cap-ETF hat eine SDG-Umsatzvereinbarkeit von 5 %, ein diversifizierter Gesundheits-ETF 14 %, Artikel 9 Fonds 21%, liquide Impactfonds 39% und ein ETF für erneuerbare Energien 43 % (vgl. Hohe SDG Umsätze? Nur wenige Investmentfonds!).

Insgesamt hat der von mir beratene Fonds seit der Auflage im August 2021 eine ähnliche Performance wie traditionelle globale Small- und Mid-Cap-Fonds (vgl. z.B. Fonds-Portfolio: Mein Fonds | CAPinside und Globale Small-Caps: Faire Benchmark für meinen Artikel 9 Fonds?).

Ein Fondsinvestment war also bisher ein „Free Lunch“ in Bezug auf Nachhaltigkeit: Ein besonders konsequent nachhaltiges Portfolio mit marktüblichen Renditen und (eher niedrigeren) Risiken. Vergangene Performance ist allerdings kein guter Indikator für künftige Performance.

Climate risks illustration from Pixabay by fernando zhiminaicela

Climate risks: Researchpost 216

Climate risks illustration from Pixabay

16x new research on bigger EU benefits, green conservatives, green US deposits, cool country risks, deforestation cost, ESG rating deficits, climate risks, carbon ratings, green VCs, life-cycle analysis, carbon offsets, transition bonds, green procurement, German impact and luxury watches (#shows the numer of SSRN full downloads as of March 6th, 2025)

Social and ecological research

Bigger EU benefits: Economic Benefits from Deep Integration: 20 years after the 2004 EU Enlargement from the International Monetary Fund by Robert Beyer, Claire Yi Li, and Sebastian Weber as of Feb. 26th, 2025 (#23): “EU enlargement has stalled since the last member joined over ten years ago … we estimate that EU membership has increased per capita incomes by more than 30 percent. Capital accumulation and higher productivity contributed broadly equally, while employment effects were small. Gains were initially driven by the industrial sector and later by services. Despite substantial regional heterogeneity in gains—larger for those with better financial access and stronger integration in value chains prior to accession—all regions that joined the EU benefited. Moreover, existing members benefited too, with average income per capita around 10 percent higher …“ (abstract).

Green conservatives: How natural disasters and environmental fears shape American climate attitudes across political orientation by Christopher R. H. Garneau, Heather Bedle, and Rory Stanfield as of Nov. 5th, 2024:”results support hypotheses that conservatives demonstrate lower climate concern and that fear of natural and environmental disasters increases climate concern. Interaction results show that fear of anthropogenic environmental disasters elicits greater climate concern amongst conservatives. At high levels of ecological fear, the political divisions diminish as all orientations converge on higher levels of acknowledging climate risks and causes”.

Greening US deposits: Climate change and bank deposits by H. Özlem Dursun-de Neef and Steven Ongena as of Feb. 27th, 2025 (#381): “Using branch-level deposit data from the U.S., we find that depositors divest from fossil fuel-financing banks when they experience warmer-than-usual temperatures. This is because of an upward shift in their climate change beliefs. Deposit reallocation is mainly due to prosocial motives rather than financial preferences” (abstract).

Cool country climate risks: A New Perspective on Temperature Shocks from the International Monetary Fund by Nooman Rebei as of Feb. 26th, (#23): “… While cold and wealthy nations experience smaller output losses than warm and poor countries in response to temporary temperature increases, the situation reverses with the permanent temperature rises associated with climate change. In this scenario, cold and rich countries suffer greater economic damage than their warmer and poor counterparts. The rationale behind this result is that, according to country-specific estimates, the magnitude of permanent temperature shocks is greater in both absolute and relative terms in colder regions. Additionally, in recent decades, these countries have faced a notorious increase in the frequency and intensity of climate-related disasters, namely storms and wildfires ,,,“ (p. 24).

Deforestation costs: Not Just Knocking on Wood: The Short- and Long-Term Pricing of Deforestation Risk on Global Financial Markets by Marc-Philipp Bohnet, Philip Fliegel, and Tycho Max Sylvester Tax as of Feb. 26th, 2025 (#49): “… We … conduct long-term asset pricing analyses of a Brown Minus Green (BMG) deforestation risk portfolio and a short-term event study of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). We find that the BMG deforestation risk portfolio does not pay a deforestation risk premium in the long term, but actually underperforms significantly by roughly 0.5% per month …” (abstract).

ESG investment research (in: Climate risks)

ESG rating deficits: Behind ESG ratings: Unpacking sustainability metrics by the OECD as of Feb.19th, 2025: “… this report aims to assess the scope and characteristics of over 2 000 ESG metrics from eight major ESG rating products. The analysis helped identify four key findings as presented below. Metric scope: significant imbalances and gaps across ESG topics … over 20 different metrics are used on average to measure performance related to topics such as corporate governance, business ethics and environmental management, compared to less than five metrics for topics such as biodiversity, business resilience, and community relations. In some cases, certain topics are entirely omitted from ESG rating products, including human rights and corruption. … Metric comparability: Considerable divergences in measurement approaches across products … For instance, one rating product uses 28 times more metrics to measure Corporate Governance performance compared to another. The range varies from 1 to 47 metrics to measure corporate GHG Emissions, and from 4 to 113 metrics to gauge a company’s corporate governance. … Metric characteristics: … ESG rating products rely primarily on input-based metrics (68%). These metrics capture self-reported policies and activities put in place to address potential and actual ESG impacts, risks, and opportunities. … Moreover, ESG performance is predominantly assessed using qualitative metrics (72%). … Moreover, most ESG rating products assess observance or “violations” of the OECD Guidelines through controversy-related metrics as a proxy … rather than evaluating a company’s due diligence efforts and effectiveness in mitigating sustainability impacts. 15% of all metrics could be broadly identified as ‘controversy-based’. Finally, measurement of ESG performance beyond an entity direct operation is limited, including measurement of how businesses identify, prevent, mitigate and account for adverse impacts in their business relationships and global supply chains …“ (p. 7/8). My comment: See this detailed comment Neues Research: Lieber keine ESG-Daten nutzen? | CAPinside and watch out for my upcoming blog post on ESG rating differences based on the same data pool

ESG lowers risk: Sustainability and financial risks of the best-in-class: A comprehensive analysis by Almudena García-Sanz, Juan-Ángel Jiménez-Martín, and M.-Dolores Robles as of March 3rd, 2025 (#14): ” We investigate the implications of firms‘ sustainability practices in mitigating their financial risks between 2000 and 2021 in the USA and Europe. … We find that the commitment to sustainability, as indicated by Thomson Reuters ESG scores, significantly impacts financial risks … the analysis by pillars highlights the Environmental pillar as the primary driver of risk mitigation …“ (abstract).

Many sectors with cli-risk: Climate risk and corporate valuations from Allianz Research by Jordi Basco Carrera and Patrick Hoffmann as of February 25th, 2025: “Investors today face dual climate risks that stem from both the transition to a sustainable economy and the increasing severity of physical climate events. Transition risks arise from rapid policy changes, technological innovations and evolving market behaviors, while physical risks include the damaging impacts of extreme weather, rising sea levels, prolonged droughts or productivity losses for workers exposed to heat. … Fossil fuels are not the only sector on the watchlist. Real estate, automotive, agriculture and heavy industry are also increasingly vulnerable due to stricter energy standards, rapid technological advancements and tighter regulatory measures. … Overall, we find that the technology and healthcare sectors show resilience under all climate transition scenarios in both the US and Europe, while the energy sector faces heightened vulnerability due to rising operational costs and regulatory pressures …” (p. 3). My comment: I am happy with the strong healthcare focus of the mutual fund which I advise

Carbon rating dominance: Environmental ratings and stock returns: The dominant role of climate change by Rients Galema and Dirk Gerritsen as of Feb. 27th, 2025 (#13): “We analyze the effect of MSCI’s environmental rating changes on stock returns for U.S. listed firms. … We find that the positive effect of aggregate environmental rating changes on subsequent stock returns is completely driven by changes in the underlying climate change rating with no significant impact of any of the other underlying theme ratings. Specifically, a one point increase in climate change rating, measured on a ten-point scale, is associated with stock returns increasing by about one percentage point over a subsequent period of six months. The impact of climate change rating changes is driven by changes of the underlying carbon emissions rating. Further analyses highlight the forward-looking nature of carbon emissions ratings in capturing emissions-related risks. Specifically, they show carbon emissions rating changes predict changes in future carbon emissions and carbon emission intensity” (abstract).

Green VC premium: Birds of a Feather Flock Together – How Investors Select and Affect Startups Based on Sustainability Signaling by Markus Koenigsmarck, Florian Kiesel, Martin Geissdoerfer and Dirk Schiereck as of Feb. 25th,2025 (#6): “Our results show that both startups select their investors, and investors select startups, according to sustainability signaling. In addition, we identified a substantial treatment on sustainability signaling when a green VC invests. Conversely, brown VCs do not influence the sustainability of their portfolio investments. Finally, we found a green alignment premium, with investors allocating more funding to startups with similar sustainability signals to themselves” (p. 32).

SDG and impact investment research

Carbon life analysis: Simplifying Life Cycle Assessment: Basic Considerations for Approximating Product Carbon Footprints Based on Corporate Carbon Footprints by Maximilian Schutzbach, Robert Miehe, and Alexander Sauer as of March 3rd, 2025 (#9):  “.. calculating individual product carbon footprints (PCF) for each product remains impractical for companies, especially with extensive product portfolios … This article addresses this gap by proposing basic considerations that enable PCF approximation based on a CCF” (Sö: corporate carbon footprints, in: abstract).

Offsetting premium: Do Investors Care About Offsetting Carbon Risk? by Yumeng Gao, Andreas G. F. Hoepner, Florent Rouxelin, and Tushar Saini as of Feb. 26th, 2025 (#19): “…This paper provides empirical evidence that investors price carbon emissions as a material risk, demanding a higher transition risk premium for firms with substantial Scope 1 and Scope2 emissions. Regulatory pressures, shifting investor sentiment, and energy transition drive this premium, with proactive climate policies and higher renewable adoption reducing risk, while weak regulations and fossil fuel dependence amplify it. We also find that carbon offset inventory can help mitigate this premium, as firms located in regions with higher offset inventory tend to experience reduced transition risk …” (abstract).

Transition & bonds: Understanding climate risk in Europe: Are transition and physical risk priced in equity and fixed-income markets? by Nicola Bartolini, Silvia Romagnoli, and Amia Santini as of Oct. 29th,2024 (#42): “… climate risk variables have different effects on stocks and bonds, with stock returns appearing mostly unaffected by climate-related variables. In contrast, bond z-spreads show significant statistical relationships with both physical and transition climate risks. Physical risk, on average, rewards the green bonds in the sample, and penalizes the traditional bonds. As for transition risk, the two proxies are shown to capture different types of information and to affect different bonds. This suggests that credit default swaps are pricing a transition risk that goes beyond carbon emissions” (abstract).

Good green procurement: The Greener, the Better? Evidence from Government Contractors by Olga Chiappinelli, Ambrogio Dalò, Leonardo M. Giuffrida, and Vitezslav Titl as of Oct. 24th, 2024 (#45): “Governments support the green transition through green public procurement. Using US data, this paper provides the first empirical analysis of the causal effects of green contracts on corporate greenhouse gas emissions and economic performance. We focus on an affirmative program for sustainable products, which represents one-sixth of the total federal procurement budget, and publicly traded firms, which account for one-third of total US emissions. Our results show that securing green contracts reduces emissions relative to firm size and increases productivity. We find no evidence that the program selects greener firms, nor that green public procurement sales crowd out private sales” (abstract). My comment: For a reason, I focus on green procurement with my shareholder engagement activities

German impact: Beyond grants: Foundations‘ responses to the hybrid practice of impact investing by Marie-Christine Groß as of Jan. 29th, 2025 (#23): “… this study conducts a multiple case study with ten large German foundations. Drawing on institutional logics, the paper constructs a conceptual model to enhance the understanding of foundations‘ responses to impact investing. … the affiliation to both logics at play and the level of risk aversion shape how foundations respond to impact investing. These factors influence whether foundations reject the hybrid practice, engage directly in impact investing, or support indirectly via system building. … Approaches of foundations engaged in impact investing are analyzed in detail …” (abstract). My comment: Investors can have some impact with my “most responsible” investment fund

Other investment research (in: Climate risks)

Double-luxury watches: Time is Money: an Investment in Luxury Watches by Philippe Masset and Jean-Philippe Weisskopf as of Feb. 24th, 2025 (#72): “The luxury watch market offers lower returns than equities but is less volatile. It also outperforms fixed income and real estate, with significant performance variation across brands. Illiquidity, analogous to other collectables, is an important feature, yet luxury watches enhance portfolio diversification and reduce risk. Additionally, the study contrasts the distinct features of investing in physical watches versus stocks of watch manufacturers …”. My comment: Lower returns with high illiquidity (and high costs): The marginal diversification benefits most be really high to add luxury watches to investment portfolios.

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

Werbung (in: Climate risks)

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in den von mir beratenen globalen Small-/Mid-Cap-Investmentfonds (siehe FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R) investieren und/oder ihn empfehlen.

Der Fonds konzentriert sich auf die UN-Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung mit durchschnittlich einzigartig hohen 99% SDG-vereinbaren Umsätzen der Portfoliounternehmen und sehr hohen E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Scores sowie einem besonders umfangreichen Aktionärsengagement bei derzeit 28 von 30 Unternehmen (siehe auch My fund).

Zum Vergleich: Ein Gesundheits-ETF hat eine netto SDG-Umsatzvereinbarkeit von 12%, Artikel 9 Fonds haben 21%, Impactfonds 38% und ein ETF für erneuerbare Energien 45% (vgl. Hohe SDG Umsätze? Nur wenige Investmentfonds!).

Insgesamt hat der von mir beratene Fonds seit der Auflage im August 2021 eine ähnliche Performance wie durchschnittliche globale Small- und Midcapfonds (vgl. z.B. Fonds-Portfolio: Mein Fonds | CAPinside und Globale Small-Caps: Faire Benchmark für meinen Artikel 9 Fonds?).

Ein Fondsinvestment war also bisher ein „Free Lunch“ in Bezug auf Nachhaltigkeit: Ein besonders konsequent nachhaltiges Portfolio mit marktüblichen Renditen und (eher niedrigeren) Risiken. Vergangene Performance ist allerdings kein guter Indikator für künftige Performance.

SDG Umsätze Illustration von Pixabay von Udayteja Pilla

Hohe SDG Umsätze? Nur wenige Investmentfonds!

SDG Umsätze: Nur 30 Fonds >80% und 100 mit 70% oder mehr

SDG-vereinbare Umsätze sind die wohl wichtigste Nachhaltigkeitskennzahl (vgl. SDG Umsätze: Die wichtigste Nachhaltigkeitskennzahl). Im Januar haben wir eine Analyse aller in Deutschland zum öffentlichen Vertrieb zugelassen Fonds durchgeführt. Dabei wurden nur knapp 30 Fonds mit aktivitätsbasierten netto SDG Umsätzen von mindestens 80% gefunden (Basis: Daten von Clarity.ai). Etwas mehr als einhundert Fonds erreichen einen SDG-Umsatz von 70% oder mehr. Die meisten davon sind sehr spezialisiert.

Bei dieser Messmethode werden die SDG-negativen Umsätze von den SDG-positiven Umsätzen jedes einzelnen Unternehmens abgezogen. So hat ein Unternehmen, das 60% Umsatz mit erneuerbaren und 40% Umsatz mit fossilen Energien macht, netto 20% SDG Umsatz.

Hier sind die vier Fonds mit mindestens 90% SDG-Umsatz:

FondsSegmentSDG-Umsatz (netto)
Monega FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development GoalsGlobale Small-Caps95%
Luxembourg Selection Active SolarErneuerbare Energien93%
Lazard Digital HealthGesundheit92%
Green Benefit Global ImpactGlobale Micro-Caps91%

Quelle: Eigene Analyse aller in Deutschland verfügbaren Fonds auf Basis von Clarity.ai Daten vom Januar 2025

Bei den Fonds mit mindestens 80% SDG-vereinbaren Umsätzen handelt es sich ganz überwiegend um Fonds mit Fokus auf Digital Health, Emerging Markets Healthcare, Medizintechnik und einige diversifizierte Gesundheitsfonds. Zu den Nicht-Gesundheitsfonds gehört ein Solarfonds, ein Wasserstoff-Fonds, ein Clean-Energy- und ein Clean-Tech Fonds. Außerdem gibt es die zwei etwas diversifizierteren Small- und Microcapfonds aus der oben aufgeführten Tabelle.

Clarity.ai selbst hatte im Dezember in einer eigenen Analyse festgestellt, dass Artikel 9 Fonds im Schnitt nur 21% SDG-Umsatzvereinbarkeit haben und Impactfonds auch nur 48% (vgl. SDG Revenue Alignment: Bringing Clarity to Impact Investing | Clarity AI).

SDG Umsätze: Verschiede Definitionen

Allerdings kann man auch in Bezug auf SDG Umsätze zu unterschiedlichen Beurteilungen kommen. So habe ich ursprünglich Sozialimmobilienunternehmen, vor allem solche für Krankenhäuser und Pflegeheime, als komplett SDG-kompatibel angesehen. Clarity.ai sieht jedoch nur die Betreiber von Krankenhäusern- und Pflegeheimen und nicht die Immobilieneigentümer als SDG-konform an. Ich habe auch Zeitarbeits- und Arbeitsvermittlungsunternehmen als SDG-konform angesehen, während Clarity.ai diese nicht so einschätzt.

Außerdem habe ich ursprünglich fast alle Gesundheitsunternehmen als SDG-vereinbar klassifiziert. Clarity.ai berücksichtigt aber nur Lösungen für Krankheiten, die für die ersten 80 % der behinderungsadjustierten Lebensjahre (DALY) verantwortlich sind (DALYs werden durch Addition der durch vorzeitigen Tod verlorenen Lebensjahre und der durch Behinderung verlorenen gesunden Lebensjahre berechnet. Ein DALY entspricht dem Verlust von einem Jahr voller Gesundheit).

Nachhaltige Fonds sollten auch gute ESG-Scores haben

Zusätzlich habe ich auch die ESG-Scores der Fonds analysiert. Dafür wurde ein Best-in-Universe Ansatz genutzt, d.h. branchenübergreifende Vergleiche angestellt. Dabei habe ich nur aus meiner Sicht potenziell nachhaltige Fonds analysiert, die im Schnitt Unternehmen mit mindestens 25% SDG Umsätzen enthalten.

Nur ungefähr 30 dieser Fonds haben einen ESG-Score von mindestens 70. Dabei bedeuten hohe Scores niedrige Risiken. Der beste Fonds erreicht einen ESG-Score von 72.

ESG und SDG machen nur einen Teil meiner Nachhaltigkeitskriterien aus (dazu gehören auch Ausschlüsse und Shareholder Engagement, vgl. 241203_Nachhaltigkeitsinvestmentpolitik_der_Soehnholz_Asset_Management_GmbH), aber der Durchschnitt der beiden oben genannten Score ermöglicht eine gute Einschätzung der Gesamt-Nachhaltigkeit eines Fonds.

Das sind die Top SDG+ESG Fonds:

FondsSegmentSDG-Umsatz (netto)ESG-Score (BiU)(SDG+ESG)/2
Monega FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development GoalsGlobale Small-Caps95%7082,5
BNP PARIBAS EASY ECPI Global ESG Med Tech ETFGesundheit85%6977
Lazard Digital HealthGesundheit92%6176,5
CPR Asset Management MedtechGesundheit82%6975,5
Diversified Growth Company MedtechGesundheit82%6975,5
Fineco Asset Management MedtechGesundheit82%6975,5
Variopartner MIV Global MedtechGesundheit82%6975,5

Quelle: Eigene Analyse aller in Deutschland verfügbaren Fonds mit SDG Umsätzen von mindestens 25% auf Basis von Clarity.ai Daten vom Januar 2025

Zur besseren Einordnung dieser Werte habe ich einige Index-ETFs analysiert, die ich für Performancevergleiche von SDG-Portfolios nutze:

FondsSegmentSDG-Umsatz (netto)ESG-Score (BiU)(SDG+ESG)/2
Amundi MSCI World Health Care UCITS ETFGesundheit12%6338
Amundi MSCI New Energy ESG Screened UCITS ETFErneuerbare Energie45%6153
Amundi MSCI All Country World ETFAll Caps12%6338
iShares MSCI World Small Cap UCITS ETFSmall Caps5%5430
iShares MSCI World Mid-Cap Equal Weight UCITS ETFMid Caps6%6033
Amundi S&P Global Industrials ESG UCITS ETFIndustrie24%6243

Quelle: Eigene Analyse aller in Deutschland verfügbaren Fonds auf Basis von Clarity.ai Daten mit Stand vom 2. März 2025

Die Auswertung zeigt, dass die ESG-Scores wesentlich näher zusammenliegen als die SDG Umsätze und dass sie keine gute Indikation für die Höhe der SDG Umsätze sind.

Trotz der relativ wenigen verfügbaren ETFs und aktiven Fonds mit hohen SDG Umsätzen sind diversifizierte konsequent nachhaltige Portfolios möglich. Mein 2025er Portfolio aus 12 SDG-Themen-ETF hat einen SDG-Umsatz von 77% mit einem ESG-Score von 60. Und mit einem erheblich stärker diversifizierten Portfolio aus aktiven Fonds komme ich auf einen SDG-Umsatz von 70% und einen ESG-Score von ebenfalls 60.

Einige Überraschungen

Mich hat erstaunt, dass es so wenige Fonds mit hohen SDG Umsatzvereinbarkeiten gibt. Ich war aber nicht überrascht, dass der von mir beratene Fonds bei den SDG Umsätzen ganz weit oben steht, denn die SDG-Umsatzquote auf Basis von Clarity-Daten ist mein wichtigstes Aktienselektionskriterium. Inzwischen beträgt die SDG Umsatzvereinbarkeit des Fonds sogar 99% und das soll auch dauerhaft so bleiben.

Ich hatte allerdings erwartet, dass es wesentlich mehr Fonds mit höheren ESG-Scores als den meines Fonds gibt. Die Clarity.ai Best-in-Universe ESG Scores sind zwar ein weiteres sehr wichtiges Kriterium für meine Aktienselektion, aber ich setze nur jeweils ein Minimum von 50 für die Umwelt-, Sozial- und Governance-Scores voraus. Ich versuche also nicht aktiv, die ESG-Scores des Fonds zu maximieren.

Dieser starke Nachhaltigkeitsfokus muss nicht zu Lasten von Performance gehen. Die Rendite meines Ende 2017 gestarteten ESG SDG Modellportfolios mit seinem Midcap-Fokus war bis Ende 2021 ähnlich wie die von Aktien weltweit. Der daraus abgeleitete aber eher auf Small-Caps fokussierte FutureVest Equities Sustainable Development Goals R Fonds hat eine vergleichbare Rendite wie traditionelle Small-Caps mit einer geringeren Volatilität. Und das, obwohl er nur aus 30 Aktien besteht. Allerding sind diese weltweit auf unterschiedliche SDGs fokussiert.

Interessenkonflikt und weitere Hinweise (in: „SDG Umsätze“)

Ich bin über die Soehnholz Asset Management GmbH Portfolioberater des FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R Fonds unter dem Haftungsdach der Deutschen Wertpapiertreuhand GmbH.

Vergangene Renditen sind kein guter Indikator für künftige Renditen und vor Fondsinvestments müssen die Risiken bzw. sollten die jeweiligen Disclaimer beachtet werden.

Beastly problems illustration from Pixabay by Clkr free vector images

Beastly problems: Researchpost 212

Beastly problems illustration from Pixabay by Clkr-free Vector Images

11x new research on meat and milk, electricity outages, emissions against competition, costly ESG events, cheaper ESG funds, ESG AI, impact channels, political banks, fund flow risks, and private equity outperformance illusion (#shows SSRN full paper downloads as of Feb. 7th, 2025).

Ecological and social research

Beastly problems (1): Climate and Nature based Interventions in Livestock – Assessing the Mitigation Potential and Financing Flows by FAIRR as of Jan. 28th, 2025:  “Annual public and private funding towards on-farm livestock interventions estimated in this report are low, amounting to USD $284.5 million (globally) and USD $120 million (for the US), respectively, representing between 0.1% and 0.2% of all climate financing over the periods assessed. … Continued reliance on interventions with incremental benefits creates a lock-in, incentivising intensive livestock production practices and delaying our ability to transition towards a net-zero and nature-positive future. … The research highlights the need to dedicate more capital towards interventions that address nature-related planetary boundaries such as biogeochemical flows, freshwater change, land-system change, biosphere integrity and novel entities. Furthermore, research, engagement and increased investment are needed across a broad range of interventions, including sustainable on-farm practices, but also demand-side measures such as protein diversification, alternative food technologies, and tackling food loss and waste to effectively reduce emissions, curb nature loss, and address human health-related impacts across the entire livestock value chain“ (p. 6).

Beastly problems (2): „Super-Emittenten“ der Fleisch- und Milchwirtschaft in Deutschland – Studie zu ihren Treibhausgasemissionen und Klimaverpflichtungen von Konstantinos Tsilimekis von Germanwatch vom Januar 2025: „In Deutschland trägt die Tierhaltung zu 5,3 % aller THG-Emissionen und zu 68,1 % der THG-Emissionen aus der Landwirtschaft bei. … Wir zeigen u. a., dass die Emissionen der zehn umsatzstärksten Schlachtkonzerne und der zehn umsatzstärksten Milchkonzerne im Jahr 2022 rund 61 % der im selben Jahr in Deutschland ausgestoßenen Emissionen durch PKWs entsprachen. Berücksichtigt man bei der Berechnung auch sog. Opportunitätskosten, dann steigen die Emissionen der Konzerne sogar auf das 1,5-fache der PKW-Emissionen. Darüber hinaus nehmen wir auch bisherige klimaschutzbezogene Eigenangaben der beiden Marktführer Tönnies und DMK Deutsches Milchkontor näher in den Blick. Dabei kommen wir zu dem Schluss, dass gerade diese beiden Konzerne noch deutlich in Sachen Vollständigkeit, Transparenz und Kohärenz nachbessern und damit für die Branche wegweisend vorlegen müssen …“ (Zusammenfassung).

Expensive outages: The Economic Costs of Temperature Uncertainty by Luca Bettarelli, Davide Furceri, Michael Ganslmeier, and Marc Tobias Schiffbauer from the International Monetary Fund as of Jan. 31st, 2025 (#18): “Combining novel high-frequency geospatial temperature data from satellites with measures of economic activity for the universe of US listed firms, … the results show that temperature uncertainty—by increasing power outages, reducing labor productivity, and increasing the degree of exposure of firms to environmental and non-political risks, as well as economic uncertainty at the firm-level—persistently reduce firms’ investment and sales. This effect varies across firms, with those characterized by tighter financial constraints being disproportionally more affected” (abstract).

Emissions against competition? The Carbon Cost of Competitive Pressure by Vesa Pursiainen, Hanwen Sun and and Yue Xiang as of Feb. 3rd, 2025 (#33):  “… The positive relationship between competition and carbon emissions is stronger for firms in areas less concerned about climate change. It is also stronger in areas with weaker social norms. Our results suggest that short termism is not the primary driver, as the emissions-competition link is at least as strong for firms with longer-term-oriented shareholders. … ” (abstract).

ESG investment research (in: Beastly problems)

Costly ESG events: Understanding Reputational Risks: The Impact of ESG Events on European Banks by Erdinc Akyildirim, Shaen Corbet, Steven Ongena, and David Staunton as of July 27th, 2024 (#152): “This study examines the financial impact of Corporate Social Irresponsibility (CSI) events on European banks. Exploiting a dataset of 11,832 reputational shocks from 2007 through 2023, we find evidence of significant negative abnormal stock returns and increased volatility following CSI media coverage. High-severity media coverage, as well as the reporting of previously unknown problems, increases the magnitude of the shock. … proactive ESG engagement buffers against reputational risks. European banks with higher deposit instability exhibit especially negative short-term returns, reflecting the interconnections between investor and depositor behaviour. Changes in total deposits that coincide with negative CSI news magnify the effect on stock prices and volatility”.

Cheaper ESG funds: ESMA Market Report Costs and Performance of EU Retail Investment Products 2024 as of Jan. 14th, 2025: “… Despite the decline in costs, active equity funds continued to underperform (after fees) passive non-exchange-traded equity funds and exchange-traded equity funds. … As reported in 2022, the ongoing costs of environmental, social and governance (ESG) funds are lower than or similar to the ongoing costs of non-ESG equivalents. Overall, ESG funds outperformed their non-ESG equivalents in 2023, with disparities across asset classes. Equity ESG funds outperformed their equivalents, while fixed income and mixed ESG funds underperformed” (p. 4).

ESG AI + and -: Big Data and Machine Learning in ESG Research by Kai Li as of Feb. 4th, 2025 (#112):  “In recent years, there has been a drastic increase in the use of machine learning methods in ESG research. Finance and accounting researchers have employed various machine learning methods, ranging from simple bag-of-words and topic modeling to more advanced methods such as word embedding, BERT, and generative AI. These methods have equipped researchers with useful tools to explore and analyze new data sets that were previously difficult or impossible to study. Moreover, machine learning has significantly expanded the range of tool kits researchers can employ to process data, as well as the range of data beyond texts, such as audio and videos … much work has been done on the “E” dimension, focusing on evaluating environmental performance, such as climate change, climate risk, and extreme weather exposure, at different levels. Meanwhile, more work could be done to measure “S” performance and gain a better understanding from the social perspective. …“ (p. 15).

SDG and impact investment research

10 impact channels: Channels of influence in sustainable finance: A framework for conceptualizing how private actors shape the green transition” by Jan Fichtner, Simon Schairer, Paula Haufe, Nicolás Aguila, Riccardo Baioni, Janina Urban and Joscha Wullweber as of  January 27th, 2025 …: “… growth in ‘sustainable finance’ assets is not necessarily causing more sustainability-advancing productive investment to drive the green transition. We thus argue that sustainable finance is not exclusively about investing or providing finance, but crucially also about changing corporate practices toward greater sustainability. … We identify ten channels of influence concerning sustainable finance: (1) initial financing; (2) refinancing; (3) (re)insurance; (4) ratings; (5) climate-litigation; (6) company engagement; (7) divestment; (8) reputation; (9) coalition-building; and (10) standard-setting. These are grouped according to the specificity and breadth of their sustainability impact …” (abstract). My detailed comment see Neues Research: Vielfältige reale Nachhaltigkeitswirkung | CAPinside

Political banks: Do banks price environmental risk? Only when local beliefs are binding! By Irem Erten and Steven Ongena as of Nov. 7th, 2024 (#151): “… At loan origination banks charge higher rates to firms creating more environmental damage, especially when they are lowly capitalized, and when the firms operate in “greener” states with lower climate denial and there is more negative environmental news. Biodiversity risk is also priced, especially when public interest in it intensifies. Following the Trump withdrawal from Paris, banks modulate their environmental risk pricing in “browner” states. In sum, environmental risk pricing in bank lending is also driven by local beliefs and attitudes” (abstract).

Other investment research (in: Beastly problems)

Flow risks: Risky Business: When Behavioral Biases Meet Mutual Fund Scale Challenges by Cristhian Andres Rodriguez Revilla as of Oct. 28th, 2024 (#118): “… A key discovery is that perceptions of threat profoundly influence managerial behavior. In conditions of substantial contractions, managers can capitalize on these challenges, effectively protecting and potentially increasing portfolio value. Conversely, during periods of significant expansion, the excessive rewards appear to compromise strategic focus and reduce investment decision quality, … The study highlights that the poorest competitive results during heavy inflows are linked to managers’ speculative choices, particularly in initiating new positions that result in adverse investment returns after three months …“ (p. 45).

Private outperformance illusion: The tyranny of IRR by Ludovic Phalippou as of Dec. 10th, 2024 (#4009): “The use of since-inception Internal Rate of Return (si-IRR) may contribute to the prevailing belief that private equity returns are much greater than those of other asset classes. This perception, in turn, drove the sharp increase in capital allocated to private equity funds in developed markets, and their fast penetration into retail investor portfolios. The „Yale model,“ which posits that superior returns arise from substantial allocations to private equity, is heavily predicated on a si-IRR …” (abstract).

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

Werbung (in: Beastly problems)

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in den von mir beratenen globalen Small-/Mid-Cap-Investmentfonds (siehe FutureVest Equity Sustainable Development Goals R) investieren und/oder ihn empfehlen.

Der Fonds konzentriert sich auf die UN-Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung mit durchschnittlich außerordentlich hohen 99% SDG-vereinbaren Umsätzen der Portfoliounternehmen und verwendet separate E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Mindestratings sowie Aktionärsengagement bei derzeit 28 von 30 Unternehmen (siehe auch My fund).

Zum Vergleich: Ein traditionelle globaler Small-Cap-ETF hat eine SDG-Umsatzvereinbarkeit von 20%, für einen Gesundheits-ETF beträgt diese 7% und für einen ETF für erneuerbare Energien 43%.

Insgesamt hat der von mir beratene Fonds seit der Auflage im August 2021 eine ähnliche Performance wie durchschnittliche globale Small- und Midcapfonds (vgl. z.B. Fonds-Portfolio: Mein Fonds | CAPinside und Globale Small-Caps: Faire Benchmark für meinen Artikel 9 Fonds?).

Ein Fondsinvestment war also bisher ein „Free Lunch“ in Bezug auf Nachhaltigkeit: Man erhält ein besonders konsequent nachhaltiges Portfolio mit markttypischen Renditen und Risiken. Vergangene Performance ist allerdings nicht unbedingt ein guter Indikator für künftige Performance.

AI for SDGs illustration by open clipart vectors from pixabay

AI for SDGs: Researchpost 209

AI for SDGs illustration by OpenClipArt Vectors from Pixabay

22x new research on smartphones, state aid, green policy, green procurement, public benefit, risk-reducing ESG, ESG dividends, biodiversity costs and risks, ESG willingness to pay, pollution divestments, climate adaptions, green employee value, AI driven financial research, LLM investing help, virtual robo advisors, discount illusion, hedge funds and pixel art (#shows the number of SSRN full paper downloads as of Jan. 16th, 2025: A low number shows a high news-potential).

Social and ecological research

AI for SDGs: Key Digital Enablers of Sustainability: A Bibliometric Analysis Using Elsevier Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Mapping by Jaewoo Bong, Jeongmi Ga, Myeongjun Yu, and Minjung Kwak as of Jan. 14th, 2025 (#9): “The analysis identified key technologies frequently associated with the 17 SDGs, revealing trends in research volume, dominant technologies, and their impacts on specific SDGs. Notably, artificial intelligence and robotics have emerged as the most influential technologies across multiple goals, whereas other technologies such as 3D printing, cloud computing, and extended reality exhibit more targeted associations, highlighting their specialized applications. This study also highlights emerging research areas such as the integration of digital twins, blockchain, and the Internet of Things in sustainable development …” (abstract).

Stupid smartphones: From Decline to Revival: Policies to Unlock Human Capital and Productivity by Dan Andrews, Balázs Égert, Christine de La Maisonneuve as of Dec. 23rd, 2024 (#20): “The productivity slowdown in many OECD countries over the last decades coincided with a significant deceleration in human capital growth. We show that nearly one-sixth of this productivity slowdown can be attributed to a decline in human capital growth, mainly driven by the decline in the quality of human capital, as measured by PISA scores. … The results highlight the negative effects of smartphone and social media usage on student performance and suggest that responsible internet use programs and education policy reforms could mitigate these effects. … Without policy intervention, continued declines in PISA scores could reduce long-term MFP (Sö: Multifactor productivity) growth by nearly 3%. Combining education reforms with structural reforms could mitigate these effects and boost long-term MFP by about 1.5%“ (abstract).

Bad state aid: A Bitter Aftertaste: How State Aid Affects Recipient Firms and Their Competitors in Europe by Luis Brandao Marques and Hasan Toprak from the International Monetary fund as of Dec. 16th, 2024: “This paper estimates the effects of state aid between 2016 and 2023 on listed nonfinancial firms in Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom (until 2020) … It finds that firms that receive state aid increase employment and revenue, but not investment or labor productivity. Moreover, it finds that there are adverse spillover effects to competing firms that significantly undo any positive own effects“ (abstract).

Green over all: Green Investing and Political Behavior by Florian Heeb, Julian F. Kölbel,  Stefano Ramelli, and Anna Vasileva as of Jan. 6th, 2025 (#1586): “A fundamental concern about green investing is that it may crowd out political support for public policy addressing negative externalities. We examine this concern in a preregistered experiment shortly before a real referendum on a climate law with a representative sample of the Swiss population (N = 2,051). We find that the opportunity to invest in a climate-friendly fund does not reduce individuals’ support for climate regulation, measured as political donations and voting intentions. The results hold for participants who actively choose green investing. We conclude that the effect of green investing on political behavior is limited”.

Green procurement: The New EU-US Joint Catalogue of Best Practices on Green Public Procurement: A Breakthrough in International Dialogue on Sustainability and an Opportunity for the WTO Committee on Government Procurement to Move Forward by Robert D. Anderson and Antonella Salgueiro as of Jan. 14th, 2025 (#29): “In April 2024, the European Union(EU) and the United States (US) jointly issued an extensive “Catalogue” of perceived best practices for promoting green public procurement (GPP) … The Catalogue provides an extremely useful compendium … the examples cited range from relatively standard goods procurement to the provision of public transport services through to building construction and a government-wide contract for IT and related infrastructure in an EU member state. The tools, approaches and innovations relating to the promotion of GPP that are set out in the Catalogue are equally diverse and impressive” (abstract).

Good intentions, bad outcome? For-benefit or For-profit? The Dark Side of Stakeholderism Legislation by Chenchen Li, Frank Zhang, and Kailiang Zhang as of Nov. 23rd, 2024 (#50): “The Public Benefit Corporation (PBC) legislation redefines corporate purposes by introducing a new legal form of corporate structure, the for-benefit corporation, which must include public benefits in its certificate of incorporation. … We posit that PBC legislation heightens the uncertainty of directors’ fiduciary duties and diminishes the perceived commitment to public interests for traditional for-profit corporations. Consequently, for profit companies will reduce their corporate social responsibility activities following the enactment of PBC laws, a phenomenon we term the corrosion effect. By exploiting the staggered enactment of PBC legislation across U.S. states, we find results consistent with our predictions. … In addition, we find that traditional for-profit corporations become more shareholder-centric at the expense of broader stakeholder interests following PBC legislation, leading to improved financial performance. We also find an overall increase in state-level pollution, suggesting that the environmental efforts of for-benefit companies are insufficient to counterbalance the reduced environmental initiatives by for-profit firms“ (abstract).

ESG investment research (in: AI for SDGs)

Risk-reducing ESG: The Impact of Economic Uncertainty on Corporate ESG Performance by Geyao Zhang, Effie Kesidou, and Muhammad Ali Nasir as of Jan. 8th, 2025 (#18): “… The results suggest that, in response to heightened economic uncertainty, firms tend to send positive signals by boosting their ESG performance. … the positive impact of economic uncertainty on corporate ESG performance is more significant for firms in consumer-facing and low-pollution industries. Additionally, the highly uncertain economic environment has had a significant positive impact on the ESG performance of firms in countries with lower media freedom and upper-middle income levels” (abstract).

ESG dividend effects: Are ESG ratings relevant? Evidence from dividend cuts by Guner Velioglu as of Jan.  14th, 2025 (#30): “… the market reactions to dividend cuts are significantly less severe when the underlying firms have high Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) ratings. … the environmental pillar rating contributes most significantly to my findings. I further document that high ESG performance premium tend to partially substitute for dividend premium” (abstract).

Corporate biodiversity costs: The Silent Cost of Biodiversity Loss: Unveiling its Impact on Institutional Ownership by Yueyang Wang as of Sept. 11th, 2024 (#14): “The research utilises a sample of U.S. companies from 2009 to 2023 … Companies facing higher biodiversity risks tend to experience a reduction in institutional ownership, likely due to concerns over increased debt risk and potential reputational damage” (abstract).

Costly biodiversity risks: Biodiversity, Governance, and Municipal Bonds by Yanghua Shi as of Jan. 9th, 2025 (40): „The paper shows that legislative changes that are harmful to local biodiversity signicantly impact municipal bond markets and are associated with an increase in municipal bond yields. … The analysis is based on a series of statewide regulatory shocks that conservation biologists consider to be detrimental to biodiversity conservation. These regulatory changes result in laws that hinder effective population management of unowned cats a well-known invasive species that contributes to biodiversity loss” (abstract).

ESG Index WTP: Sustainability Preferences of Index Fund Investors: A Discrete Choice Experiment by Rob Bauer, Bin Dong, and Peiran Jiao as of Jan. 9th, 2024 (#140): “… we show how index fund investors cope with the conflict between index tracking and the pursuit of sustainability. We measure the willingness-to-pay for sustainability in an online discrete choice experiment (DCE) with real index fund investors. On average, our participants are willing to pay for sustainability but are insensitive to ESG intensity. They prefer the negative screening strategy, but are indifferent among other ESG integration strategies. In the meantime, our latent class analysis shows considerable heterogeneity among investors in their sustainability preferences” (abstract).

Impact investment research

Pollution divestment (1): Sustainability or Greenwashing: Evidence from the Asset Market for Industrial Pollution by Ran Duchin, Janet Gao and Qiping Xu as of May 5th, 2024 (#3616): “We study the asset market for pollutive plants. Firms divest pollutive plants in response to environmental pressures. The buyers are firms facing weaker environmental pressures, with supply chain relationships or joint ventures with the sellers. While pollution levels do not decline following divestitures, the sellers highlight their sustainable policies in subsequent conference calls, earn higher returns as they sell more pollutive plants, and benefit from higher ESG ratings and lower compliance costs. Overall, the asset market allows firms to redraw their boundaries in a manner perceived as environmentally friendly without real consequences for pollution and with substantial gains from trade” (abstract). My comment: If buyers (and owners of these buyers) care for ESG, divesting pollution does not work well. Also, the use of Scope 3 Greenhouse Gas emissions which includes suppliers helps to mitigated pollution divestments.

Pollution divestment (2): Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Divestments and the Global Reallocation of Pollutive Assets by Tobias Berg, Lin Ma, and Daniel Streitz as of Nov. 13th, 2024 (#762): “We analyze firms’ carbon reduction strategies worldwide and identify one key channel: large, primarily European firms facing increased investor pressure divest pollutive as sets to firms that are less in the limelight. There is no evidence of increased engagement in other emission reduction activities. We estimate that 369 million metric tons (mt) of CO2e are reallocated via divestments in the post-Paris Agreement period, shifting pollutive assets from Europe to the rest of the world. Our results indicate significant global asset reallocation effects and imply that responsible investors who want to truly invest responsibly need to monitor firms’ divestment strategies closely” (abstract).

Adaptation dividends: Why do we need to strengthen climate adaptations? Scenarios and financial lines of defense by Francesco Paolo Mongelli, Andrej Ceglar, and Benedikt Alois Scheid as of Dec. 17th, 2024 (#39): “… we now have better granular climate data to study the impacts of climate hazards and forecast climate risks … and there is an increasing pool of case studies from which to learn. There is evidence that efficient adaptation investments can yield “triple-dividends” helping to close the financing gap. … Innovative financial instruments, such as catastrophe bonds and climate bonds, might support challenged insurance coverages“ (abstract).

Green employee pressure? Clients, employees and institutional owners: Who influences corporate decarbonisation commitments? by Andreas G. F. Hoepner, Ifigenia Paliampelou and Frank Schiemann as of Jan. 8th, 2025 (#17): “This study examines the determinants of corporate decarbonization commitments … the findings highlight that institutional ownership (IO) exerts the strongest influence on decarbonization decisions, followed by employees with CSR concerns (SGA). Additionally, companies with higher green revenues are more likely to set decarbonization commitments, often at the subsidiary level, driven by specific customer pressures …” (abstract).

Employee engagement: Bottom-up collaborative approach to transformative sustainable business model innovation: Developing engagement in an incumbent firm by Genet Corine and Rose Bote as of Dec. 6th, 2024 (#6): “This paper investigates the emergence of employee engagement through the process of transformative sustainable business model innovation (SBMI) within an established organization. … Recognizing the critical role that employees play in these transformations, we aim to examine how their engagement emerges. Based on a qualitative case study of a mature nuclear-based organization … From a practical perspective, we advocate for forums to encourage intrapreneurial creativity for incumbent firms seeking transformation in their business models” (abstract). My comment: I try to include employees in ma stakeholder engagement activities see HR-ESG shareholder engagement: Opinion-Post #210 – Responsible Investment Research Blog

Other investment research (in: AI for SDGs)

AI driven financial research: AI and Finance by Andrea Eisfeldt and Gregor Schubert as of November 18th, 2024 (#1102): “We provide evidence that the development and adoption of Generative AI is driving a significant technological shift for firms and for financial research. We review the literature on the impact of ChatGPT on firm value and provide directions for future research investigating the impact of this major technology shock. Finally, we review and describe innovations in research methods linked to improvements in AI tools, along with their applications. We offer a practical introduction to available tools and advice for researchers interested in using these tools” (abstract).

LLM investing help: Stock Portfolio Selection Based on Risk Appetite: Evidence from ChatGPT by Constantin J. Schneider and Yahya Yilmaz as of Dec. 17th, 2024 (#155): “… We prompt ChatGPT to generate portfolios tailored to different risk appetites of retail investors focusing on U.S. and European equity markets. Our analysis of multiple ChatGPT models reveals that higher risk portfolios generally yield higher returns. However, the models exhibit varying performance across different markets … We further demonstrate that ChatGPT can effectively adjust portfolio risk and return metrics in accordance with individual risk preferences” (abstract).

Virtual robo advice: Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Virtual Reality Convergence in Financial Services: The Power of Digital Twin Robo-Advisers by Marco I. Bonelli and Jiahao Liu as of Dec. 31st, 2024 (#22): “… By combining AI’s predictive power with the immersive nature of VR, robo-advisors now offer the most advanced toolset available to investors. AI-powered Digital Twins provide real-time simulations of investment portfolios, allowing users to explore multiple scenarios, assess risks, and optimize their strategies with precision. The addition of VR creates a lifelike, 3D financial environment where users can visualize their portfolios, simulate various financial decisions, and gain deeper insights into how these choices impact their long-term financial goals“ (p. 12).

Discount illusion: „Buy the Dip“ – Wie gut funktioniert diese Anlagestrategie? von Gerd Kommer vom 9. Januar 2024: Buy the Dip-Investieren (BTD) … produziert schlechtere Durchschnittsrenditen und Endvermögenswerte als vergleichbares Sofort-All-In Buy-and-Hold Investieren (SAI B&H). Zwar steigt die statistische Renditeerwartung von Aktien nach einem Abschwung in der Tat, dieser Anstieg gleicht die Minderrendite, also die Opportunitätskosten, der für BTD notwendigen Investitionsreserve nicht ausreichend aus. Die Argumentation, dass BTD-Strategien im Allgemeinen ein geringeres Risiko aufweisen als vergleichbare SAI B&H-Strategien relativiert die maue BTD-Performance u. E. nur partiell“ (in: Fazit).

Disappointing hedge funds: Hedge Funds: A Poor Choice for Most Long-Term Investors by Richard M. Ennis as of Dec. 13th, 2024 (#27): “For years, hedge fund investments have reduced the alpha of most institutional investors (helped drive it negative, actually). At the same time, they deprive long-term investors of desired equity exposure. In other words, hedge funds have been alpha-negative and beta-light. For these reasons, it is difficult to see a strategic benefit to having a diversified hedge fund allocation in the mix for most endowment and pension funds. If, however, an institution has access to a few truly exceptional hedge funds and can resist the temptation to diversify hedge fund exposure excessively, a small allocation may be warranted” (p. 7).

Pixel passion: Passion for Pixels: Affective Influences in the NFT Digital Art Market by Guneet Kaur Nagpal and Luc Renneboog as of Jan. 8th, 2025 (#23): “Passion investment (e.g., paintings, sculptures, non-fungible tokens [NFTs]) are not based on straightforward valuations. To establish the valuation of collectible NFTs in the nascent market of digital art, this study uses approximately 14,000 transactions by 3,230 unique traders in a highly liquid digital collectibles market … First, there is evidence of subjective valuation of visual (aesthetic) elements of art among market participants, who are homogenous on the value of objectively measurable traits. Second, contrary to popular perception, NFT market participants’ who are naive (in terms of crypto currency experience) or experienced a windfall gain (due to favorable cryptocurrency exchange rates) trade at lower prices. … Third, prior trading activity and prices positively associate with future prices, implying price extrapolation and anchoring. The findings suggest that compared to the traditional art and investment domains, digital ownership might evoke similar, if not stronger, emotional responses among consumers than physical ownership“ (abstract).

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

Werbung (in: AI for SDGs)

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in den von mir beratenen globalen Small-/Mid-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 99% SDG-vereinbaren Umsätzen der Portfoliounternehmen und verwendet separate E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Mindestratings sowie Aktionärsengagement bei derzeit 28 von 30 Unternehmen (siehe auch My fund).

Zum Vergleich: Ein traditionelle globaler Small-Cap-ETF hat eine SDG-Umsatzvereinbarkeit von 5%, für einen Gesundheits-ETF beträgt diese 1% und für einen ETF für erneuerbare Energien 44%.

Insgesamt hat der von mir beratene Fonds seit der Auflage im August 2021 eine ähnliche Performance wie durchschnittliche globale Small- und Midcapfonds (vgl. z.B. Fonds-Portfolio: Mein Fonds | CAPinside und Globale Small-Caps: Faire Benchmark für meinen Artikel 9 Fonds?).

Ein Fondsinvestment war also bisher ein „Free Lunch“ in Bezug auf Nachhaltigkeit: Man erhält ein besonders konsequent nachhaltiges Portfolio mit markttypischen Renditen und Risiken.

Impact beats ESG illustration by Megan Rezaxin Conde from Pixabay

Impact beats ESG: Researchpost 208

Impact beats ESG illustration by Megan Rezaxin Conde from Pixabay

Impact beats ESG includes 6x new research papers on Ukrainian refugees, brown monetary risks, ESG washing, pollution measurement and impact funds (#shows the number of SSRN full paper downloads as of Jan. 9th, 2025).

Social and ecological research

Homesickness: The Effect of Conflict on Ukrainian Refugees’ Return and Integration by Joop Adema, Cevat Giray Aksoy, Yvonne Giesing, and Panu Poutvaara as of March 14th, 2024 (#23): “Our analysis has highlighted that the vast majority of Ukrainians in Ukraine plan to stay and most Ukrainian refugees in Europe plan to return … which contrasts with high pre-war emigration desires. … In our panel survey, we find that close to 2% of Ukrainian refugees returned every month. … Ukrainians’ confidence in their government and optimism have reached exceptionally high levels in international comparison … ” (p. 24).

ESG investment research (in: Impact beats ESG)

Brown monetary risks: Green Stocks and Monetary Policy Shocks: Evidence from Europe by Michael D. Bauer, Eric A. Offner, and Glenn D. Rudebusch as of Dec. 23rd, 2024 (#44): “… euro-area green stocks appear significantly less affected by monetary policy surprises to interest rates than higher-carbon brown stocks … focusing on narrower stock market indexes for the green and brown energy sectors, we find that the interest rate reactions of the renewable energy industry are weaker than the response of the oil & gas energy sector … These conclusions are in broad agreement with recent research using U.S. data … a carbon premium, while not firmly established empirically in the literature, seems to be a promising potential candidate explanation for the differential green/brown sensitivity. … Another potential explanation is a demand channel, according to which the product demand for green firms is less cyclical and less interest-sensitive than for brown firms …“ (p.34/35).

ESG washing: Green Window Dressing by Gianpaolo Parise and Mirco Rubin as of Dec 13th, 2024 (#46):  “ESG fund managers are assigned two conflicting objectives: to deliver performance and to invest responsibly. While investors monitor how fund managers fare along the first dimension daily and from unbiased performance metrics, they tend to evaluate funds’ responsibility through sustainability ratings. These ratings are based on granular portfolio holdings that must be publicly disclosed four times a year. However, portfolio disclosure is only informative as long as managers disclose portfolio holdings that are representative. If managers move into and out of responsible portfolios to time regulatory filings, sustainability ratings might be uninformative. In this paper, we establish that money managers engage in “green window dressing.” We document that funds move in and out of ESG stocks around disclosure to inflate sustainability ratings. We support this claim with four separate sets of analyses. … We find that expensive funds, as well as star and laggard funds are more likely to engage in green window dressing. … green window dressers end up attracting substantially higher capital flows. This last result holds only for institutional clients, which is consistent with the argument that institutional investors delegate green window dressing to ESG mutual funds” (p. 37-39). My comment: I disclose the fund holdings monthly and change them typically only once a year (see www.futurevest.fund).

Impact beats ESG: Different Shades of ESG Funds by Simona Abis, Andrea M Buffa and Meha Sadasivam as of Dec. 9th, 2024 (#84): “… among active equity mutual funds in the US …. the majority of the growth in ESG investment … comes from what we define as opportunistic funds; i.e, those funds which use ESG-related information only with the objective of maximizing risk-adjusted returns. Whereas, funds that have ESG-related considerations in their objective function for non-pecuniary reasons, altogether only represent 25% of the funds and 8% of the AUM of ESG-related active mutual funds by 2022. A more detailed portfolio analysis uncovers that funds with different ESG objectives display very different portfolios and trading behavior. With only impact, impact activist and opportunistic activist funds displaying significantly greater ESG ratings of stocks held” (p. 33). My comment: My fund invests in very high ESG rated companies which should have a positive impact measured by SDG-aligned revenues and in addition I try to have investor impact through stakeholder engagement

Impact investment research

Pollution washing? Socially responsible investing and multinationals’ pollution – Evidence from global remote sensing data by Virginia Gianinazzi, Victoire Girard, Mehdi Lehlali, and Melissa Porras Prado as of Dec. 19th, 2024 (#69): “Our findings reveal a positive association between ESG or sustainable institutional ownership and pollution reduction …. Firms with higher SRI ownership tend to decrease pollution. This relationship is predominantly observed in OECD countries or those with stringent environmental laws. In contrast, in non-OECD locations, where environmental regulations may be less stringent, vegetation quality around facilities does not show any significant reaction to SRI inflows. This heterogeneity suggests a potential strategic behavior of multinationals receiving SRI when deciding where to focus their environmental efforts. These insights also illuminate the concrete environmental impacts driven by sustainable capital, surpassing reliance solely on self reported emissions data” (p. 29).

Other investment research

Unfair investment AI? AI, Investment Decisions, and Inequality by Alex G. Kim,  David S. Kim, Maximilian Muhn, Valeri V. Nikolaev and Eric C. So as of Dec. 30th, 2024 (#1400): “Using two large-scale experiments with actual financial data from 200 publicly traded firms … our evidence shows that generative AI significantly enhances both financial comprehension and investment performance, making earnings information more accessible to a broader investor base. … AI’s effectiveness critically depends on the alignment between its outputs and user expertise … AI can widen performance gaps by disproportionately benefiting sophisticated investors“ (p.33/34).

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

Werbung (in: Impact beats ESG)

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in den von mir beratenen globalen Small-/Mid-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 99% SDG-vereinbaren Umsätzen der Portfoliounternehmen und verwendet separate E-, S- und G-Best-in-Universe-Mindestratings sowie Aktionärsengagement bei derzeit 28 von 30 Unternehmen (siehe auch My fund).

Zum Vergleich: Ein traditionelle globaler Small-Cap-ETF hat eine SDG-Umsatzvereinbarkeit von 5%, für einen Gesundheits-ETF beträgt diese 1% und für einen ETF für erneuerbare Energien 44%.

Insgesamt hat der von mir beratene Fonds seit der Auflage im August 2021 eine ähnliche Performance wie durchschnittliche globale Small- und Midcapfonds (vgl. z.B. Fonds-Portfolio: Mein Fonds | CAPinside und Globale Small-Caps: Faire Benchmark für meinen Artikel 9 Fonds?).

Ein Fondsinvestment war also bisher ein „Free Lunch“ in Bezug auf Nachhaltigkeit: Man erhält ein besonders konsequent nachhaltiges Portfolio mit markttypischen Renditen und Risiken.

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 29 Illustration von Gerd Atmann von Pixabay

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 29: Transplantationsprodukte

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 29 Illustration von Gerd Altmann von Pixabay

XVIVO Perfusion: Unternehmensübersicht

Das SDG-Investmentbeispiel 29 der 30 Aktien meines Fonds ist XVIVO Perfusion aus Schweden. XVIVO ist ein Medizintechnikunternehmen, das sich nach eigenen Angaben für die Verlängerung der Lebensdauer aller wichtigen Organe einsetzt, damit Transplantationsteams auf der ganzen Welt mehr Leben retten können. Das Unternehmen ist in drei Segmenten tätig: Dem Verkauf von Lungen- und Herztransplantationsprodukten, dem Verkauf von Leber- und Nierentransplantationsprodukten und Dienstleistungen im Bereich der Organentnahme.

Etwa 60% des Umsatzes werden in Amerika, vor allem den U.S.A., und etwa ein Drittel in Europa gemacht. Lungen- und Herztransplantationsprodukte, vor allem medizinische Einwegartikel, machen über 60% des Umsatzes aus. Mehr als 20% entfallen zudem auf – überwiegend ebenfalls Einwegartikel – mit dem Fokus Leber und Niere.

Update: Im April 2025 wurden alle Aktien von XVIVO nach einem Scoringupdate aufgrund eines nunmehr zu niedrigen Umweltscores verkauft.

Sehr gute SDG-Vereinbarkeit und akzeptable ESG-Risiken (in: SDG-Investmentbeispiel 29)

Auch XVIVO erfüllt meinen wichtigsten Nachhaltigkeitsanspruch, nämlich Produkte oder Services anzubieten, die möglichst gut vereinbar mit den Nachhaltigen Entwicklungszielen der Vereinten Nationen (SDG) sind. Clarity.ai schätzt den kompletten Umsatz von XVIVO mit 100% als sehr gut vereinbar mit den SDG, vor allem SDG 3 (Gesundheit) ein. Damit liegt XVIVO noch über dem bereits sehr hohen Fondsdurchschnitt von 95% und sehr weit über den 8% eines diversifizierten Gesundheits-ETFs (z.B. Amundi MSCI World Health Care ETF).

Kritische Aktivitäten oder Verletzungen der Ausschlusskriterien sind von XVIVO nicht bekannt.

Die aggregierten ESG-Scores von XVIVO liegen bei guten 61 von 100, damit aber unter dem hohen Fondsdurchschnitt von 70. Der Governance-Score liegt mit 66 unter dem durchschnittlichen Score des Fonds von 80 und auch der der Sozialscore von 54 ist niedriger als der Fondsdurschnitt von 61. Der Umweltscore von 71 ist ungefähr so hoch wie der des Fonds insgesamt, der bei 73 liegt.

Grundsätzliche Offenheit für mein Share- und Stakeholder-Engagement

Mein Investment- und Engagementstart waren der März 2024. XVIVO hat sehr schnell auf meine ersten Fragen reagiert und zeigt sich offen dafür, einige meiner Anregungen aufzunehmen, z.B. in Bezug auf ESG-Befragungen von Mitarbeitern. In Bezug auf GHG Scope 3 Emissionen, umfassende ESG-Befragungen von Kunden bzw. ESG-Beurteilungen von Lieferanten gibt es offenbar (noch) keine Pläne. Zu meinen konkreten Vorschlägen (vgl. 241203_Nachhaltigkeitsinvestmentpolitik_der_Soehnholz_Asset_Management_GmbH.pdf) schreibt XVIVO: „We will consider this in our work to continuously improve within ESG aspects”.

Nachtrag: Im Jahresbericht 2024 werden GHG Scope 3 Emissionen ausgewiesen. Das ist aber sicher nicht meinen Anregungen (alleine) zuzurechnen.

Nachhaltigkeitsfazit (in: SDG-Investmentbeispiel 29)

Die Unternehmen in meinem Portfolio gehören sowohl in Bezug auf Ausschlüsse als auch ESG- und SDG-Kriterien bereits zu den besten weltweit. Alternative Investments scheiden nach diesen Kriterien etwas schlechter ab und es ist nicht abschätzbar, ob deren Engagementreaktion positiver als die von XVIVO wäre. Deshalb verkaufe ich allein wegen dieser unbefriedigenden Reaktion auf meine Engagements keine Aktien. Divestments erfolgen in der Regel nur dann, wenn meine Mindestanforderungen an Ausschlüsse, ESG-Risiken bzw. SDG-Umsätze nicht mehr erfüllt werden.

Dabei bin ich davon überzeugt, dass Investments und Divestments durchaus reale Auswirkungen auf Unternehmen haben können, vor allem, wenn transparent über diese berichtet wird, so wie ich das hier mache (zum Thema Divestments siehe Impact divestment: Illiquidity hurts) und zum Thema „Additionalität“ von börsennotierten Investments siehe z.B. Who Clears the Market When Passive Investors Trade? von Marco Sammon und John J. Shim vom 15.April  2024).

Gute Portfoliodiversifikation

Mit Biotage, Elekta und XVIVO ist Schweden überproportional im Fonds vertreten. Die Unternehmen machen sich aber keine Konkurrenz und auch aus anderen Ländern findet sich kein Wettbewerber von XVIVO im Fonds. Mit 130 Mitarbeitern und einer Marktkapitalisierung von ungefähr 1,4 Milliarden Euro gehört XVIVO zu den kleinsten Unternehmen im Fonds, dessen Median-Marktkapitalisierung aktuell bei ungefähr vier Milliarden Euro liegt.

Seit der Aufnahme der Aktie in den Fonds ist diese um ungefähr 60 Prozent gestiegen.

Weitere Informationen zum Fonds (in: SDG-Investmentbeispiel 29)

Insgesamt hat der von mir beratene Fonds seit der Auflage im August 2021 eine ähnliche Performance wie durchschnittliche globale Small- und Midcapfonds (vgl. z.B. Fonds-Portfolio: Mein Fonds | CAPinside und Globale Small-Caps: Faire Benchmark für meinen Artikel 9 Fonds?).

Ein Fondsinvestment war also bisher ein „Free Lunch“ in Bezug auf Nachhaltigkeit: Man erhält ein besonders konsequent nachhaltiges Portfolio mit markttypischen Renditen und Risiken (vgl. Free Lunch: Diversifikation nein, Nachhaltigkeit ja?).

Weitere Beiträge zum Fonds

My fund, vor allem:

Nachhaltiges Investmentbeispiel 1: Gesundheitspersonalservices (5-2024)

SDG-Investment 2: Handschuhe aus Australien (6-2024)

Impactbeispiel 3: Wassermessgeräte (6-2024)

Impactbeispiel 4: Schwedische Labortechnik (6-2024)

Impactfonds im Nachhaltigkeitsvergleich (6-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 5: US-Arzneimittelvertrieb (7-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 6: Hörimplantate aus Australien (8-2024)

3 Jahre nachhaltigster diversifizierter Fonds? (8-2024)

My shareholder engagement: Failures, successes and adaption (8-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 7: Chinesische Taxis? (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 8: Baskische Schienenfahrzeuge (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 9: Krebsbekämpfung aus Schweden (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 10: US-Krebsvorsorge und -Diagnose (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 11: Solartechnik aus den USA (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 12: Schweizer Apotheken (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 13: Fokus Grüner Star (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 14: US-Dentalvertrieb (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 15: Smart Grids aus der Schweiz) (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 16: Schweizer Orthopädie (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 17: Mettler Toledo (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 18: Nachhaltige Busse (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 19: Deutsche Gesundheits-Software (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 20: Deutsche Onshore-Windenergie (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 21: Medizingeräte aus Japan (11-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 22: US-Gesundheitsservices (11-2014)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 23 Pro Medicus (11-2014)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 24: Australischer Krankenhausbetreiber (11-2014)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 25: Biopharmatechnik (12-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 26: Erneuerbare Energie für Afrika (12-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 27: Laborservices aus Australien (12-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 28: Finnische Wellness (12-2024)

Disclaimer (in: SDG-Investmentbeispiel 29)

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.

Good geen banking: Illustrated with bank by Jörg from Pixabay

Good green banking: Researchpost 206

Good green banking illustration by Joerg from Pixabay

Good green banking: 8+x new practical research on bad plastic credits, good green pledges, relative ESG investing, positive net zero banking, value creation intransparency, transition belief consequences, bio damage premium, many sustainability guides, and angel investor success factors (# shows SSRN full paper downloads as of Dec. 12th, 2024. Low numbers indicate that few people have read that research)

Ecological and social research

No plastic credits? Unpacking plastic credits: Challenges to effective and just global plastics governance by Sangcheol Moon et al. as of Dec. 9th, 2024 (#23): “Amid growing concerns over plastic pollution and ongoing efforts to develop a global plastics treaty, this paper critically examines plastic credits as a compensatory measure for addressing plastic pollution. Despite claims of being a novel financing and control measure, plastic credits mirror the shortcomings of carbon credits and fail to account for the material complexities and varied impacts of different types of plastics. If linked to public policy, plastic credits risk creating regulatory loopholes and delaying more effective measures like sector-specific plastic reduction. We argue that plastic credits do not represent an innovative approach to genuine plastic pollution reduction or its financing; instead, they could exacerbate fragmented plastics governance and reinforce legitimation of waste colonialism“ (p. 1).

ESG investment research (in: Good green banking)

Good pledges: Corporate Green Pledges by Michael Bauer, Daniel Huber, Eric Offner, Marlene Renkel, Ole Wilms as of Dec. 11th, 2024 (#5): “We identify corporate commitments for reductions of greenhouse gas emissions—green pledges—from news articles using a large language model. About 8% of U.S. firms have made green pledges, and these companies tend to be larger and browner than those without pledges. Announcements of green pledges significantly and persistently raise stock prices, consistent with reductions in the carbon premium. Firms that make green pledges subsequently reduce their CO2 emissions“ (abstract). My comment: With my shareholder engagement I ask for disclose of broad GHG scope 3 emissions so that all stakeholders can require Scope 3 pledges by these companies, see Shareholder engagement: 21 science based theses and an action plan

Relative ESG: The Evolving attractiveness of relative ESG ratings to institutional investors by Christian Riis Flor and Mo Zhang as of Dec. 10th, 2024 (#8):  “We find that institutional investors significantly increase holdings in firms with below-average ESG performance when these firms make ESG improvements. Conversely, firms with already high ESG ratings attract less additional institutional investment, even with continued ESG advancements. … “ (p. 8). “Our findings indicate that only socially constrained institutions consistently prefer companies with high ESG performance. Meanwhile, sophisticated institutional investors, such as hedge funds, respond to ESG improvements only in firms with exceptionally high or low ESG grades. In contrast, less sophisticated investors, such as banks, are more likely to respond to ESG rating changes in firms with average ESG performance” (p. 3). My comment: I focus my limited capital on the already best ESG rated companies and make proposals how they can become even better with the hope, that companies which are not so well rated will (have to) follow the ESG leaders (see Shareholder engagement: 21 science based theses and an action plan).

SDG investment research

Good green banking: The Economics of Net Zero Banking by Adair Morse and Parinitha Sastry as of Dec. 5th, 2024 (#36): “Banks have voluntarily committed to align their lending portfolios with a net zero path toward a decarbonized economy. In this review, we explore the economic channels for why portfolio decarbonization might be consistent with lender profit maximization. … We uncover multiple roles for risk arguments influencing decarbonization. Moreover, decarbonization and green investment are tied to enhanced profitability through bank lending growth. Yet, the literature has many dots yet to connect” (abstract).

Value disclosure deficits: Value creation reporting for sustainable development – a framework based on the current state of reporting by Patricia Ruffing-Straube and Saverio Olivito as of Dec. 5th, 2024 (#36): “… assessing the impact of firms on people and planet proves difficult as combining the large amount of information provided in sustainability reports to a clear indication of impact is not a trivial exercise. … only 55% of Swiss firms report on sustainable value creation in 2022. The disclosures made on this topic are not easily comparable and mostly lack clear targets and in particular information on target achievement. … Euro Stoxx 50 firms … results are largely comparable. Based on our findings we propose a novel framework for the analysis of sustainable value creation reporting …” (p.26). My comment: I suggest to focus on SDG-aligned revenues, see SDG Revenue Alignment: Bringing Clarity to Impact Investing by Clarity AI

Important transition beliefs: Climate Transition Beliefs by Marco Ceccarelli and Stefano Ramelli as of May 6th, 2024 (#494): “We provide survey evidence of considerable heterogeneity in investors’ expectations regarding the state of the energy transition by 2030, 2040, and 2050. These climate transition beliefs capture a dimension of human thinking different from environmental preferences or climate concerns. Investors with more optimistic transition beliefs associate green investments with higher returns and lower risk, and they are more likely to prefer a green over a conventional equity fund. The role of climate transition beliefs in green investing appears more important for investors without strong pro-environmental preferences” (p. 31).

Bio-damage premium? The World Market Price of Biodiversity Risk by William W. Xiong as of Dec. 10th, 2024 (#22): I investigate whether biodiversity risks are priced in global stock markets by studying 21,248 publicly listed stocks across 117 countries from April 2016 to June 2023. “… I examine firm-level biodiversity risk exposures and show that they are positively associated with stock returns worldwide …. this study shows that firms involved in biodiversity incidents experience higher monthly stock returns in the month of incident(s), … notably in the US” (abstract).

Many sustainability guides: Alan S. Gutterman has published several detailed sustainability guides from 2021 until September 2024 e.g. with the following topics: Sustainability Standards and Instruments, Manufacturing, Product Development, Sales and Distribution, Fair Operating Practices, Sustainable Leadership, Sustainability and Organizational Culture, Strategic Planning for Sustainability, Stakeholder Relationships and Engagement, Financing the Business and Sustainable Finance and Impact Investment, Investing for Impact

Other investment research (in: Good green banking)

Angel success factors: Are Some Angels Better than Others? Johan Karlsen, Aksel Mjøs, Katja Kisseleva, and David T. Robinson as of July 10th, 2024: “… data from Norwegian equity transaction records to measure the performance of angel investors … angel investors exhibit a form of performance persistence: Namely, the re turns on the previous angel investment and the success or failure of the last firm the angel invested in strongly predict the performance in the current investment and success or failure of the current firm. … Our evidence suggests that industry-specific knowledge mixed with deal-selection skill is important for explaining performance differences across angel investors. … We are the first to link the performance in angel investments to performance in other investments …” (p. 36/37).

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

Werbung (in: Good green banking)

Unterstützen Sie meinen Researchblog, indem Sie in den von mir beratenen globalen Small-/Mid-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 26 von 30 Unternehmen (siehe auch My fund).

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 26 AI generierte Illustration von leoneil maranan von pixabay

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 26: Erneuerbare Energie für Afrika

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 26 Illustration von Scatec von Leoneil Maranan von Pixabay

Scatec: Unternehmensübersicht

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 26 aus dem von mir beratenen Fonds ist Scatec.

Scatec ASA ist ein Solarspezialist mit Hauptsitz in Norwegen. Auf der Internetseite von Scatec heisst es: „Scatec ist ein führender Anbieter von Lösungen für erneuerbare Energien, der den Zugang zu zuverlässiger und erschwinglicher sauberer Energie in wachstumsstarken Märkten beschleunigt. Als langfristiger Akteur entwickeln, bauen, besitzen und betreiben wir Anlagen für erneuerbare Energien“.

Der Bereich Stromerzeugung macht ungefähr drei Viertel des Umsatzes aus und ein Viertel wird der Entwicklung und dem Bau von Anlagen erzielt. Nachdem Scatec früher nur auf Solar fokussiert war, gehören seit einiger Zeit auch Wind- und Wasserkraftwerke zum Geschäft. Projekte von Scatec finden sich Ländern wie Südafrika, Ruanda, Mosambik, Ägypten, Jordanien, Malaysia, Honduras, Ukraine aber auch in Tschechien und in den Niederlanden.

Sehr gute SDG-Vereinbarkeit und relativ geringe ESG-Risiken (in: SDG-Investmentbeispiel 26)

Scatec erfüllt meinen wichtigsten Nachhaltigkeitsanspruch, nämlich Produkte oder Services anzubieten, die möglichst kompatibel mit den Nachhaltigen Entwicklungszielen der Vereinten Nationen (SDG) sind, besonders gut. Clarity.ai weist 99% Umsatzvereinbarkeit mit den SDG, speziell dem SDG 7 für bezahlbare und saubere Energie aus. Die durchschnittliche SDG-Vereinbarkeit der Aktien des Fonds liegt aktuell bei sehr hohen 95%. Zum Vergleich: Der Amundi MSCI New Energy ESG Screened ETF hat aktuell 53% SDG-vereinbare Umsätze.

Allerdings ist Scatec das einzige Unternehmen des Fonds, das ganz überwiegend in Entwicklungsländern tätig ist. Damit ist es besonders gut positioniert, um an der Umsetzung der SDGs mitzuarbeiten. Ausschlussrelevante bzw. sonstige kritische Aktivitäten von Scatec sind nicht bekannt.

Der aggregierte Best-in-Universe ESG-Score von Scatec liegt bei 64 und damit unter dem relativ hohen Fondsdurchschnitt von 70. Der Sozialscore von 53 (Schnitt 61) und der Umweltscore von 64 (73) liegen ebenfalls unter dem Mittelwert der Aktien aus dem Portfolio. Dafür liegt der Governancescore mit 86 (80) sogar noch nennenswert über dem hohen Portfoliodurchschnitt.

Offene Punkte aus dem Share- und Stakeholder-Engagement

Investment- und Engagementstart mit Scatec waren jeweils im November 2023. Die ersten Antworten auf meine Fragen habe ich noch im November erhalten. Auf meine daraufhin gemachten weitergehenden Fragen bzw. Vorschläge (vgl. 241203_Nachhaltigkeitsinvestmentpolitik_der_Soehnholz_Asset_Management_GmbH.pdf) habe ich aber noch keine Antwort bekommen.

Scatec berichtet bereits umfassend GHG Scope 3 Emissionen und die CEO Pay Ratio und lässt Lieferanten vorbildlich unabhängig und umfassend von Ecovadis nach ESG-Kriterien bewerten.

Ich habe die Veröffentlichung der aggregierten ESG-Bewertungen von Lieferanten angeregt, um künftige Verbesserungen zeigen zu können, aber darauf noch keine Antworten bekommen. Außerdem gibt es noch keine systematischen und umfassenden ESG-Mitarbeiterbefragungen, wie sie von mir vorgeschlagen werden. Weil die Kunden nach Aussagen von Scatec vor allem Staaten, ausländische Behörden bzw. Energieversorgen sind, sind die von mir angeregten systematischen ESG-Kundenbefragungen wohl nur schwer umsetzbar.

Nachhaltigkeitsfazit (in: SDG-Investmentbeispiel 26)

Die Unternehmen in meinem Portfolio gehören sowohl in Bezug auf Ausschlüsse als auch ESG- und SDG-Kriterien bereits zu den besten weltweit. Alternative Investments scheiden nach diesen Kriterien etwas schlechter ab und es ist nicht abschätzbar, ob deren Engagementreaktion positiver als die von Scatec wäre. Deshalb verkaufe ich allein wegen dieser unbefriedigenden Reaktion auf meine Engagements keine Aktien. Divestments erfolgen in der Regel nur dann, wenn meine Mindestanforderungen an Ausschlüsse, ESG-Risiken bzw. SDG-Umsätze nicht mehr erfüllt werden.

Dabei bin ich davon überzeugt, dass Investments und Divestments durchaus reale Auswirkungen auf Unternehmen haben können, vor allem, wenn transparent über diese berichtet wird, so wie ich das hier mache (zum Thema Divestments siehe z.B. Impact divestment: Illiquidity hurts und zum Thema „Additionalität“ von börsennotierten Investments siehe Who Clears the Market When Passive Investors Trade? von Marco Sammon und John J. Shim vom 15. April  2024).

Sehr gute Portfoliodiversifikation

Scatec ist das einzige Unternehmen des Fonds mit Hauptsitz in Norwegen und das Portfoliounternehmen mit dem höchsten Umsatzanteil in Emerging Markets. Nur First Solar ist ebenfalls im Solarenergiemarkt tätig aber kein direkter Wettbewerber, sondern bei einigen Projekten Lieferant von Scatec.

Mit etwa 700 Mitarbeitern und einer Marktkapitalisierung von ungefähr einer Milliarde Euro gehört Scatec zu den kleinsten Unternehmen im Portfolio.

Seit der Aufnahme in den Fonds ist der Aktienkurs von Scatec um circa 22% gestiegen.

Weitere Informationen zum Fonds (in: SDG-Investmentbeispiel 26)

Insgesamt hat der von mir beratene Fonds seit der Auflage im August 2021 eine ähnliche Performance wie durchschnittliche globale Small- und Midcapfonds (vgl. z.B. Fonds-Portfolio: Mein Fonds | CAPinside und Globale Small-Caps: Faire Benchmark für meinen Artikel 9 Fonds?).

Ein Fondsinvestment war also bisher ein „Free Lunch“ in Bezug auf Nachhaltigkeit: Man erhält ein besonders konsequent nachhaltiges Portfolio mit fondstypischen Renditen und Risiken (vgl. Free Lunch: Diversifikation nein, Nachhaltigkeit ja?).

Weitere Beiträge zum Fonds

My fund

Nachhaltiges Investmentbeispiel 1: Gesundheitspersonalservices (5-2024)

SDG-Investment 2: Handschuhe aus Australien (6-2024)

Impactbeispiel 3: Wassermessgeräte (6-2024)

Impactbeispiel 4: Schwedische Labortechnik (6-2024)

Impactfonds im Nachhaltigkeitsvergleich (6-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 5: US-Arzneimittelvertrieb (7-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 6: Hörimplantate aus Australien (8-2024)

3 Jahre nachhaltigster diversifizierter Fonds? (8-2024)

My shareholder engagement: Failures, successes and adaption (8-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 7: Chinesische Taxis? (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 8: Baskische Schienenfahrzeuge (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 9: Krebsbekämpfung aus Schweden (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 10: US-Krebsvorsorge und -Diagnose (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 11: Solartechnik aus den USA (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 12: Schweizer Apotheken (9-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 13: Fokus Grüner Star (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 14: US-Dentalvertrieb (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 15: Smart Grids aus der Schweiz) (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 16: Schweizer Orthopädie (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 17: Mettler Toledo (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 18: Nachhaltige Busse (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 19: Deutsche Gesundheits-Software (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 20: Deutsche Onshore-Windenergie (10-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 21: Medizingeräte aus Japan (11-2024)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 22: US-Gesundheitsservices (11-2014)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 23 Pro Medicus (11-2014)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 24: Australischer Krankenhausbetreiber (11-2014)

SDG-Investmentbeispiel 25: Biopharmatechnik (12-2024)

Disclaimer (in: SDG-Investmentbeispiel 26)

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.

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).