Sustainability Community

Hi James

I just finished reading this and made some comments that seemed pertinent at least to areas of historic confusion, on Linkedin.  I have cut and pasted below.   Anyone else have observations to make?

So what is ESGand Responsible Investing? A new dimension in Investing?

Some Clarity in a foggy land.

The CFA, PRI and GSIA have put their heads together to give the investment Industry some common definitions so dialogue with stakeholders has a bit more clarity. There remains room for interpretation and other words also continue a source of confusion. 

We do now have common definitions for five key terms used to describe aspects of responsible investment processes and which have been open to interpretation and a spectrum of use.  Collectively they allow for clearer communication of investment approach and disclosure of process. 

💡 Screening

💡 ESG Integration

💡 Thematic Investing

💡 Stewardship

💡 Impact Investing

ESG integration implies a focus on Risk return maximisation. So on its own it is agnostic to directionality around impact for good. Alone it merely communicates that ESG issues are considered for their financial materiality in assessing the risk and return expected from an investment.

Impact and positioning around sustainability will arise from the other elements of the investment process and arise indirectly or directly.

Screening affects the investable universe which creates an impact profile different from the overall asset class. The screen may involve rules that select for sustainable or impact outcomes associated with the investments.

Thematic investing has a clear defining element that is not always evident in investment use. Thematic investing must have a trend, so it exploits a dynamic of some kind. Thematic is often used to define an area of interest in the same way an industry or sector is defined which may not per se have a trend. It is noticeable that in many source definitions for the paper from the CFA and GSIA have definitions of thematic specifically to ESG and Sustainability while specific ESG or Sustainability trends are only a subset of possible themes and these historic definitions don't demand a trend. The PRI historic definition is more aligned.

Stewardship stance of a firm informs the investor about how it behaves in a "good citizenship" sense to people, environment and planet. The context being the overall impact of investments on the common good of at least investors interests.  It embraces a long term perspective and a whole portfolio outcome. For universal investment portfolios this implies taking a very global and holistic view given the interconnectedness of impacts. By itself it does not mandate having a measurable positive impact or an impact that negatively affects risk return. It does require consideration of any potential harm an investment may do to the wider portfolio. So it potentially prevents investment in companies that create costs or harm to the commons for higher returns. In effect adoption of stewardship commitments adds some non-financial dimension to the duty to clients (Fiduciary duty plus if you like).  The channel of impact is principally via advocacy, engagement and dialogue.

Impact Investing considers outcomes other than financial risk adjusted return as valuable and able to be weighed against maximising financial risk return. The definition does require that the impact sought can be measured and so quantified. I would note finding metrics and uncontested methodologies for some forms of impact may be a challenge however claims of impact investments require an attempt to quantify and report their impact.

Thanks David - good points.  Common agreement around terms is useful.  Individual client sustainability preferences also need to be considered across the 'spectrum of capital' regarding financial returns through to philanthropy.  Not all investors have the same aims obviously hence the difference in approaches to responsible investment and also considering the importance of fiduciary duty. 

It will be interesting to see where the final FCA SDR sustainability labels and rules due in the coming weeks help shape this and implications for investment and financial advisors.  I have seen an early indication of how one outfit Welcome to the Accord Initiative, part of ESG Accord  is trying to tackle this for client informed choices process and a suitability framework to match the proposed FCA labels - as below.  There will be other approaches also so 2024 will be interesting to see how the industry develops and incorporates FCA sustainable label definitions, as well as wider developments in the EU with SFDR review and US.

Thanks David - good points.  Common agreement around terms is useful.  Individual client sustainability preferences also need to be considered across the 'spectrum of capital' regarding financial returns through to philanthropy.  Not all investors have the same aims obviously hence the difference in approaches to responsible investment and also considering the importance of fiduciary duty. 

It will be interesting to see where the final FCA SDR sustainability labels and rules due in the coming weeks help shape this and implications for investment and financial advisors.  I have seen an early indication of how one outfit Welcome to the Accord Initiative, part of ESG Accord  is trying to tackle this for client informed choices process and a suitability framework to match the proposed FCA labels - as below.  There will be other approaches also so 2024 will be interesting to see how the industry develops and incorporates FCA sustainable label definitions, as well as wider developments in the EU with SFDR review and US.

Hi James

I just finished reading this and made some comments that seemed pertinent at least to areas of historic confusion, on Linkedin.  I have cut and pasted below.   Anyone else have observations to make?

So what is ESGand Responsible Investing? A new dimension in Investing?

Some Clarity in a foggy land.

The CFA, PRI and GSIA have put their heads together to give the investment Industry some common definitions so dialogue with stakeholders has a bit more clarity. There remains room for interpretation and other words also continue a source of confusion. 

We do now have common definitions for five key terms used to describe aspects of responsible investment processes and which have been open to interpretation and a spectrum of use.  Collectively they allow for clearer communication of investment approach and disclosure of process. 

💡 Screening

💡 ESG Integration

💡 Thematic Investing

💡 Stewardship

💡 Impact Investing

ESG integration implies a focus on Risk return maximisation. So on its own it is agnostic to directionality around impact for good. Alone it merely communicates that ESG issues are considered for their financial materiality in assessing the risk and return expected from an investment.

Impact and positioning around sustainability will arise from the other elements of the investment process and arise indirectly or directly.

Screening affects the investable universe which creates an impact profile different from the overall asset class. The screen may involve rules that select for sustainable or impact outcomes associated with the investments.

Thematic investing has a clear defining element that is not always evident in investment use. Thematic investing must have a trend, so it exploits a dynamic of some kind. Thematic is often used to define an area of interest in the same way an industry or sector is defined which may not per se have a trend. It is noticeable that in many source definitions for the paper from the CFA and GSIA have definitions of thematic specifically to ESG and Sustainability while specific ESG or Sustainability trends are only a subset of possible themes and these historic definitions don't demand a trend. The PRI historic definition is more aligned.

Stewardship stance of a firm informs the investor about how it behaves in a "good citizenship" sense to people, environment and planet. The context being the overall impact of investments on the common good of at least investors interests.  It embraces a long term perspective and a whole portfolio outcome. For universal investment portfolios this implies taking a very global and holistic view given the interconnectedness of impacts. By itself it does not mandate having a measurable positive impact or an impact that negatively affects risk return. It does require consideration of any potential harm an investment may do to the wider portfolio. So it potentially prevents investment in companies that create costs or harm to the commons for higher returns. In effect adoption of stewardship commitments adds some non-financial dimension to the duty to clients (Fiduciary duty plus if you like).  The channel of impact is principally via advocacy, engagement and dialogue.

Impact Investing considers outcomes other than financial risk adjusted return as valuable and able to be weighed against maximising financial risk return. The definition does require that the impact sought can be measured and so quantified. I would note finding metrics and uncontested methodologies for some forms of impact may be a challenge however claims of impact investments require an attempt to quantify and report their impact.