INVESTORS are being encouraged to think more about sustainability, but can it actually make money?
Critics claim it is a sure way to underperform - more about doing good and feeling virtuous – but with the European Union planning to legislate on measures for responsible business, and the UK likely to set similar standards, stewardship in investing cannot be ignored.
What was once labelled socially responsible investing has now been rebranded environmental, social and governance, or ESG for short. More than just the name has changed, though, with the focus shifting away from the exclusion of areas considered by some to be bad investments towards the responsible stewardship of assets.
This now involves all companies across every sector. It is not just environmental impact, but what companies are doing to align themselves with stakeholders and society. And there is evidence that this can enhance investment returns and reduce portfolio risk.
What appears to help investment returns is not absolute compliance with some ideal notion of a sustainable company or a fixed set of attributes. Instead, the key is whether company boards and management are fully committed to progress towards being a good corporate citizen.
Investors seem to recognise a journey of improvement. This can range from monitoring and reducing adverse environmental impact, such as greenhouse gas emissions, to making improvements in board and management diversity.
In some parts of the world environmental factors are prized, but in the UK the emphasis seems to be on governance. This can deliver better alignment of management pay with genuine value creation and it can help to ensure that corporate environmental and social policies are joined up with measurable change and management incentives.
Today, one of the biggest assets of most companies is reputation – something that can be destroyed quickly by social media or press coverage when something goes wrong. Getting companies to focus on high standards of customer service and public accountability can cut risks. It should help shareholders to sleep easier, too.
Individual investors can still exclude industries such as tobacco from their portfolios, but ethical boundaries are not always clear. Some sectors are more contentious and the materiality of a particular activity can be debatable. Should supermarkets that sell cigarettes be excluded, even if it those sales contribute just a small proportion of overall profits?
Investing by exclusion has a mixed record and the status of not being a shareholder in a company does not give much leverage for driving change. Excluding those shares from portfolios may not achieve much. More usefully, ESG can be used as a lens to view risk in a business. Any company that is out of line with society’s norms is more likely to fail, like Wonga has shown.
There is value in aligning a company’s ESG policies with public expectations. In some companies, the elements of sustainability are deeply entangled. Tesla, for example, might score well for developing electric vehicles, but the company has also seen regulatory intervention on its governance and will need to reduce the environmental impact of battery components such as cobalt.
The area most likely to pay off in the short term is governance. Investing institutions are now starting to use their voice and are more consistently exercising their votes.
All investors can include in their analysis the commitment that a company makes to ESG improvement. Company annual reports can be scrutinised for evidence that laudable aims are carried through into specific measurement and incentives.
Investors should take another look at sustainability. This is not just a matter of social conscience, but something that can improve performance and cut risks.
Colin McLean is managing director at SVM Asset Management.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here