Why equity portfolio managers use ESG factors in their investment decisions

Here’s a note from Alex Edmans:

New paper, “Sustainable Investing: Evidence From the Field” (with Tom Gosling and Dirk Jenter). We survey 509 equity portfolio managers, of both traditional and sustainable funds, on whether, why, and how they incorporate firms’ environmental and social performance into investment decisions.

1. Both traditional and sustainable funds rank ES last out of six drivers of long-term value: below strategy, operational performance, governance, culture, and capital structure in that order. Clients interested in financial returns should not overweight a fund’s ES credentials above its ability to assess these other factors.

2. This low relative ranking doesn’t mean that ES is immaterial in absolute terms. Indeed, 73% of sustainable and even 45% of traditional investors expect ES leaders to deliver positive alpha. Unexpectedly, the most popular reason is that ES is a signal for other important value drivers rather than mattering directly. As I wrote in “The End of ESG”, ES is “extremely important and nothing special”.

3. ES performance influences stock selection, engagement, and voting for 77% of investors (66% traditional, 91% sustainable). Calls to “ban ES” make little sense as many traditional investors voluntarily incorporate it.

4. Only 24% of traditional and 30% of sustainable investors would sacrificing even 1bp of annual return for ES, citing fiduciary duty concerns. Policymakers and the public need to have realistic expectations of the asset management industry’s likely ES impact. It will incorporate financially material ES factors, but it won’t subsidize ES investments that offer below-market returns. That’s not because fund managers are greenwashing, but because they are fund managers. Their fiduciary duty is to their clients, whose goals are often financial.

5. But non-financial goals can be pursued through ES constraints such as fund mandates. 71% (61% traditional, 84% sustainable) report that ES constraints required them to make different investment decisions. These constraints sometimes reduced the very ES impact they aim to achieve, for example by preventing funds from investing in ES laggards whose performance they could have improved.

6. Overall, traditional and sustainable investors are more similar than commonly believed. Sustainable investors recognise fiduciary duty and are unwilling to sacrifice financial returns for ES. Traditional investors view ES as material and face ES constraints (firmwide policies, client wishes) preventing investment in “unsustainable” stocks. While some clients are attracted by sustainability labels, many traditional funds invest sustainably and many sustainable ones don’t – and chasing a label can prevent true sustainable investing.

Big thanks to the those who filled in the survey, beta-tested it, distributed it, and were interviewed. We hope that by directly involving practitioners, we can increase the relevance of academic research.