ESG v sustainability: are we heading in the right direction?
- Clients have a growing appetite to invest in ‘sustainable’ companies
- Fund managers commonly use environmental, social and governance (ESG) scores to decide which firms qualify, but these metrics can be problematic
- We may need to go beyond ‘fixing the data’ to identify how best to help companies achieve their potential and deliver long-term growth
“Late at night, a police officer finds a drunk man crawling around on his hands and knees under a streetlight. The drunk man tells the officer he’s looking for his wallet. When the officer asks if he’s sure this is where he dropped the wallet, the man replies that he thinks he more likely dropped it across the street. Then why are you looking over here? the officer asks. Because the light’s better here, explains the drunk man.”1
The last few years have seen an explosion in sustainable or Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) investing.
Morningstar estimates that as of 2021, the assets allocated to sustainable funds globally had grown to $2.74tn2, and the number of funds was just shy of 6,000. The US accounted for 13 per cent of these assets ($357bn) and 9 per cent of these funds.3
The Global Sustainable Investment Alliance puts the figure even higher. It suggests there were already $35tn of sustainably invested global assets under management (AUM) at the end of 2019. That would have represented nearly a third of total AUM.
What do we mean when we talk about ESG?
These numbers hide that there is no agreement as to what ESG means, either in the context of investing or corporate conduct.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine brought this into stark relief. Depending on who was talking, ESG covered the full spectrum from ethical behaviour (doing the right thing, regardless of the financial consequences) to being a mechanism for financial risk management.
That is not to suggest that there are no definitions of ESG investing4, just that these are inconsistent. And, even where the language is the same, there are differences in interpretation and approach that may result in different outcomes – even for similarly labelled investment products.
Yet this is about more than just better product definition. All ESG investment (or at least equity investment) requires an evaluation of the ESG performance of the underlying companies. Investors can do this in-house or outsource it to third parties.
In many instances, these third parties are large rating agencies and data providers that score a company’s performance against a range of environmental, social and governance factors that the agency believes are relevant.
The inputs to this assessment include company-reported information and other data sources, such as news reports about controversies. It may also include some interaction with the company, (however, this is limited, given the sheer number of companies that rating agencies cover). The company is then scored on how ‘good’ an ESG performer it is.
So far, so straightforward. The reality, however, is far from straightforward.
Can we agree on ESG as a measure of financial risk?
Those close to our world know that several studies have found little or no correlation between ESG scores given to the same companies by different major data providers. Rating agencies claim largely to be analysing company exposure to risks that ESG factors may pose to a company’s bottom line.
Even with this narrow focus, researchers have found high levels of divergence across the agencies’ company assessments.
These studies concluded that the discrepancies were the result of not just different conceptualisations of the issue being examined5 but differences in how rating agencies measured the issue they claimed to be measuring.
There are differences in:
the specific attributes evaluated (scope)
the weight assigned to the different aspects that are measured
the indicators used to measure or assess performance on a specific attribute
The low correlation exists at both the overall score level and the component levels (E, S and G).
The graph below shows comparisons of Sustainalytics and MSCI’s ESG scores for some of Baillie Gifford’s holdings.
What if ESG and sustainability are not the same thing?
The challenge goes beyond ratings divergence. It goes to the heart of what ESG is and what it is not. Rating agencies are clear that their ratings are about financial risk management.
For many clients, however, the promise of ESG products lies not just in better financial risk management but in investing sustainably. In other words, investing in a manner that aligns with their values or in a way that contributes to improved environmental or social outcomes.
The UK’s Financial Conduct Authority6 found that 80 per cent of respondents to its Financial Lives Survey “consider environmental issues important and believe that businesses have a wider responsibility than simply to make a profit”. These clients may be surprised at some of the companies making their way into an ESG fund and the fact the fund looks a lot like the benchmark index.
How do we resolve this?
For some, the solution lies in fixing the data. This involves pushing for greater data availability and data quality through standardisation of corporate ESG reporting and making it mandatory. Here, the thinking goes, ESG reporting will eventually take on the same status as financial reporting, leading to more consistent and comparable reporting and consequently better ESG outcomes.
Regulators seem to agree that this is a sensible direction of travel. In the last two months, the International Sustainability Standards Board, the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the European Financial Regulatory Advisory Group have all released climate and/or broader sustainability disclosure standards for consultation. They intend these to become mandated reporting in due course.
Yet it is not clear that the core problem is the data. Recent research into ESG ratings correlation found that more company disclosure exacerbates ratings divergence rather than improves it.
Even more fundamentally, the study concluded that while more disclosure of input metrics (eg the existence, or otherwise, of a policy) might improve correlations, disclosure of more output metrics (water withdrawals, worker fatality rates) made it worse. This was particularly pronounced in environmental and social metrics.
That led the authors to conclude that “a lot of work still needs to be done to develop rules and norms to determine what characterises good ESG performance”. We, and others, have written about our disagreement with rating agency assessments. Our argument is that they:
do not capture the factors that we believe matter
focus too much on where a company is now and not where it could or should be going
give emphasis to quantification and scoring, which ignores complexity
Do these inconsistencies matter?
Some market commentators have argued that none of this matters. They say that, assuming ESG-related investing is about avoiding risky companies and enhancing long-term performance, then any disagreements about specific firms' ratings and ESG outcomes are exactly what the markets exist to speculate on.
But we think the inconsistencies do matter, for several reasons:
- ESG is being hard-coded in a way that ignores the complexity of the issues it claims to address
Investment managers are being asked to disclose portfolio performance against a range of ESG metrics, not all of which may be used for purposes of investment analysis. And companies are increasingly under pressure to both disclose ever-more ESG data points and to ‘score well’ on ESG ratings assessments. This is not the easiest of tasks, as the above-mentioned research demonstrates.
- Large sums of ESG-aligned investment rely on company ESG ratings provided by rating agencies and index providers
Regulators around the world are consequently starting to focus on this market.
- ESG factors go to the heart of a business and its operations
This affects how a company treats the environment, how it manages relations with its employees and how it thinks about human rights in its supply chain. To the extent that we are signalling to companies that these things matter, we should be clearer about what good looks like. Otherwise, we risk encouraging companies to focus on irrelevant factors that may turn out to be a costly and ultimately unhelpful distraction.
Where to from here?
Our starting point as long-term investors is to think about the companies we invest in holistically. We look not just at their long-term potential but the impacts, positive and negative, they have on the broader system.
We can only consider long-term value creation to be successful if we continue to see broad-based improvement in human quality of life. Even as bottom-up investors, we recognise the need to think systemically.
That leads us to the questions we think are worth exploring.
First, is there value in slowing our headlong rush to demanding more metrics and disclosure? Should we be focusing more on figuring out how we measure what really matters? Like our man looking for his wallet, can we spend more time trying to illuminate the areas that are most relevant and less looking in the areas where the information is easily available? If yes, how do we do this?
Second, is our current approach to ESG too static – box-ticking, even? Does it focus too much on where we are now and not enough on where we have the potential to go? We believe that just as there are no perfect human beings, there are no perfect companies. And that even perceptions of ‘good’ will vary, depending on the prevailing norms and standards and how they evolve. If we are investing for the future then, by definition, we are on a journey, and we should treat it in this manner. How do we best encapsulate this in our frameworks?
Third, where are the opportunities for investors to contribute meaningfully to this journey? Investors will always have different perspectives on the specific factors that are likely to generate long-term returns. But how do we ensure we contribute to the overall health of the system?
We continue to believe that the answers lie at least in part in deep company analysis, drawing on a range of sources and commitment to long-term investing. For the rest, we acknowledge the need to keep having conversations.
1 The exact source of this anecdote/metaphor is unknown. We use it in this context to refer to the tendency to look for answers where there is available data, rather than where the answers may lie. What David Freedman refers to as the ‘streetlight effect’ – see Freedman, D.H. (2010) Why Scientific Studies Are So Often Wrong: The Streetlight Effect, Discover Magazine
2 Morningstar (2022) Global Sustainable Fund Flows: Q4 2021 in Review
3 As above
4 Morningstar defines sustainable investing – which it acknowledges can be used interchangeably with ESG investing though it differentiates it somewhat – as investing “to deliver competitive financial results, while also driving positive environmental, social, and corporate governance outcomes”
5 At this time, it was still framed as corporate social responsibility
6 The FCA is the regulator for UK-regulated financial firms and markets
Risk factors and important information
The views expressed should not be considered as advice or a recommendation to buy, sell or hold a particular investment. They reflect opinion and should not be taken as statements of fact nor should any reliance be placed on them when making investment decisions.
This communication was produced and approved in May 2022 and has not been updated subsequently. It represents views held at the time of writing and may not reflect current thinking.
Potential for profit and loss
All investment strategies have the potential for profit and loss, your or your clients’ capital may be at risk. Past performance is not a guide to future returns.
This communication contains information on investments which does not constitute independent research. Accordingly, it is not subject to the protections afforded to independent research, but is classified as advertising under Art 68 of the Financial Services Act (‘FinSA’) and Baillie Gifford and its staff may have dealt in the investments concerned.
All information is sourced from Baillie Gifford & Co and is current unless otherwise stated.
The images used in this communication are for illustrative purposes only.
Baillie Gifford & Co and Baillie Gifford & Co Limited are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). Baillie Gifford & Co Limited is an Authorised Corporate Director of OEICs.
Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited provides investment management and advisory services to non-UK Professional/Institutional clients only. Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited is wholly owned by Baillie Gifford & Co. Baillie Gifford & Co and Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited are authorised and regulated by the FCA in the UK.
Persons resident or domiciled outside the UK should consult with their professional advisers as to whether they require any governmental or other consents in order to enable them to invest, and with their tax advisers for advice relevant to their own particular circumstances.
This communication is suitable for use of financial intermediaries. Financial intermediaries are solely responsible for any further distribution and Baillie Gifford takes no responsibility for the reliance on this document by any other person who did not receive this document directly from Baillie Gifford.
Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Europe) Limited provides investment management and advisory services to European (excluding UK) clients. It was incorporated in Ireland in May 2018. Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Europe) Limited is authorised by the Central Bank of Ireland as an AIFM under the AIFM Regulations and as a UCITS management company under the UCITS Regulation. Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Europe) Limited is also authorised in accordance with Regulation 7 of the AIFM Regulations, to provide management of portfolios of investments, including Individual Portfolio Management (‘IPM’) and Non-Core Services. Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Europe) Limited has been appointed as UCITS management company to the following UCITS umbrella company; Baillie Gifford Worldwide Funds plc. Through passporting it has established Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Europe) Limited (Frankfurt Branch) to market its investment management and advisory services and distribute Baillie Gifford Worldwide Funds plc in Germany. Similarly, it has established Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Europe) Limited (Amsterdam Branch) to market its investment management and advisory services and distribute Baillie Gifford Worldwide Funds plc in The Netherlands. Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Europe) Limited also has a representative office in Zurich, Switzerland pursuant to Art. 58 of the Federal Act on Financial Institutions (‘FinIA’). The representative office is authorised by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA). The representative office does not constitute a branch and therefore does not have authority to commit Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Europe) Limited. Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Europe) Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited, which is wholly owned by Baillie Gifford & Co. Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited and Baillie Gifford & Co are authorised and regulated in the UK by the Financial Conduct Authority.
Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Shanghai) Limited
柏基投资管理(上海)有限公司(‘BGIMS’) is wholly owned by Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited and may provide investment research to the Baillie Gifford Group pursuant to applicable laws. BGIMS is incorporated in Shanghai in the People’s Republic of China (‘PRC’) as a wholly foreign-owned limited liability company with a unified social credit code of 91310000MA1FL6KQ30. BGIMS is a registered Private Fund Manager with the Asset Management Association of China (‘AMAC’) and manages private security investment fund in the PRC, with a registration code of P1071226.
Baillie Gifford Overseas Investment Fund Management (Shanghai) Limited
柏基海外投资基金管理(上海)有限公司(‘BGQS’) is a wholly owned subsidiary of BGIMS incorporated in Shanghai as a limited liability company with its unified social credit code of 91310000MA1FL7JFXQ. BGQS is a registered Private Fund Manager with AMAC with a registration code of P1071708. BGQS has been approved by Shanghai Municipal Financial Regulatory Bureau for the Qualified Domestic Limited Partners (QDLP) Pilot Program, under which it may raise funds from PRC investors for making overseas investments.
Baillie Gifford Asia (Hong Kong) Limited
柏基亞洲(香港)有限公司 is wholly owned by Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited and holds a Type 1 and a Type 2 license from the Securities & Futures Commission of Hong Kong to market and distribute Baillie Gifford’s range of collective investment schemes to professional investors in Hong Kong. Baillie Gifford Asia (Hong Kong) Limited
柏基亞洲(香港)有限公司 can be contacted at Suites 2713-2715, Two International Finance Centre, 8 Finance Street, Central, Hong Kong. Telephone +852 3756 5700.
Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited is licensed with the Financial Services Commission in South Korea as a cross border Discretionary Investment Manager and Non-discretionary Investment Adviser.
Mitsubishi UFJ Baillie Gifford Asset Management Limited (‘MUBGAM’) is a joint venture company between Mitsubishi UFJ Trust & Banking Corporation and Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited. MUBGAM is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited (ARBN 118 567 178) is registered as a foreign company under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and holds Foreign Australian Financial Services Licence No 528911. This material is provided to you on the basis that you are a ‘wholesale client’ within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘Corporations Act’). Please advise Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited immediately if you are not a wholesale client. In no circumstances may this material be made available to a ‘retail client’ within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act.
This material contains general information only. It does not take into account any person’s objectives, financial situation or needs.
Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited is registered as a Foreign Financial Services Provider with the Financial Sector Conduct Authority in South Africa.
Baillie Gifford International LLC is wholly owned by Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited; it was formed in Delaware in 2005 and is registered with the SEC. It is the legal entity through which Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited provides client service and marketing functions in North America. Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited is registered with the SEC in the United States of America.
The Manager is not resident in Canada, its head office and principal place of business is in Edinburgh, Scotland. Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited is regulated in Canada as a portfolio manager and exempt market dealer with the Ontario Securities Commission (‘OSC’). Its portfolio manager licence is currently passported into Alberta, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland & Labrador whereas the exempt market dealer licence is passported across all Canadian provinces and territories. Baillie Gifford International LLC is regulated by the OSC as an exempt market and its licence is passported across all Canadian provinces and territories. Baillie Gifford Investment Management (Europe) Limited (‘BGE’) relies on the International Investment Fund Manager Exemption in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
Baillie Gifford Overseas is not licensed under Israel’s Regulation of Investment Advising, Investment Marketing and Portfolio Management Law, 5755-1995 (the Advice Law) and does not carry insurance pursuant to the Advice Law. This material is only intended for those categories of Israeli residents who are qualified clients listed on the First Addendum to the Advice Law.
Ref 21727 10010496