| 
		Investing green is all the rage, but benchmarks still hazy
		 Send a link to a friend 
		
		 [September 13, 2019]  By 
		Swati Pandey and Patturaja Murugaboopathy 
 SYDNEY (Reuters) - Global money managers 
		and companies are rushing to meet a deadline to report on their carbon 
		footprint, but the lack of a standard metric raises concerns their 
		efforts could just be a box-ticking exercise in the transition from 
		brown to green.
 
 From 2020, firms with some $118 trillion of funds under management - 
		among 800 signatories to a United Nations pact - will make climate-risk 
		related disclosures as an early step towards making the world a better 
		place by 2030.
 
 The problem with assessing carbon footprints is that there are no 
		universal criteria for benchmarking environmental, social and governance 
		(ESG) - the key factors in measuring the sustainability and ethical 
		impact of an investment.
 
 "The way you quantify climate impact and consider transition risks could 
		differ from company to company," said Stephane Andre, a Sydney-based 
		portfolio manager at Alphinity Investments which has A$8.2 billion 
		($5.65 billion) in assets under management.
 
		
		 
		
 "There is no prescriptive way to look at it," he added. "What it means 
		is in the short term there might be limited value in it."
 
 That hasn't stopped stakeholders such as Andre from piling pressure on 
		companies to tackle the 17 United Nations 'sustainable development 
		goals' such as zero hunger, gender equality and clean energy.
 
 Mining titan BHP Billiton <BHP.AX> surprised markets this year when it 
		announced plans to cut carbon emissions not just at its own facilities 
		but for its customers as well. It exited some coal projects, on the 
		heels of rival Rio Tinto <RIO.L>.
 
 Large banks have begun disclosing their carbon exposures while setting 
		targets for clean lending, while insurers including Chubb <CB.BN> <CB.N> 
		and Suncorp <SUN.AX>, have moved away from coverage for new coal 
		projects.
 
 Top U.S. retailer Walmart <WMT.N> said this month it would stop selling 
		ammunition for handguns in all its stores across the country and 
		Australia's Woolworths <WOW.AX> became the first supermarket chain in 
		the world to issue a certified climate bond this year.
 
 Despite a blitz of such corporate announcements, fund managers are 
		constantly trying to differentiate between genuine ESG and spin by 
		looking for deeper disclosures from the companies they screen, in areas 
		such as gender pay gap and relationship with employees and suppliers.
 
 But not all companies publish data on ESG impact yet, and analyzing data 
		from those that do is also challenging. "Data isn't always readily 
		available, and not all investors have access to advanced analytical 
		tools or various ESG data sets," said Jessica Huang, head of Americas 
		and APAC platform for Blackrock Sustainable Investing. "Investors often 
		rely too much on historical data, which may not provide an accurate 
		prediction of future trends."
 
 ESG SCORE
 
 Some investment managers use so-called ESG ratings provided by firms 
		such as Fitch Ratings.
 
		
            [to top of second column] | 
            
			 
            
			 Power-generating 
			windmill turbines are pictured during sunset at a wind park in 
			Campeneac, France, September 3, 2019. REUTERS/Gonzalo Fuentes 
            
			 
One MSCI study found that companies with higher average ESG ratings had lower 
risks, greater profitability and higher dividend yields. Yet, those ESG scores 
are based on the levels of disclosure by a company, not an actual assessment of 
practices. 
Worryingly, a comparison of FTSE and MSCI ESG scores has hardly any correlation, 
said Mike Lubrano, managing director for corporate governance & sustainability 
at Cartica Management.
 Variations in the components and weightings of the underlying metrics used by 
different index providers also generate widely divergent scores, he noted.
 
Despite the challenges of measuring ESG performance, investments in the stream 
are rising. Investors believe that if companies do well on ESG metrics, such 
focus will make their businesses more sustainable in the long term.
 Indeed, an analysis of the top 500 companies in Asia, based on ESG metrics, 
shows their average returns outperformed the broader MSCI Asia Pacific index 
<.MIAPJ0000PUS> each time in the last 10 years.
 
 (GRAPHIC: Asian ESG leaders' price performance - https://tmsnrt.rs/2Adko9m)
 
 Data from Lipper showed assets under management of ethical, water and 
alternative energy funds in Asia climbed 16% to $28.5 billion in the first half 
of 2019 from a year ago.
 
 In debt markets, climate bond issuances surpassed $150 billion this year though 
still a far cry from the $1 trillion goal for 2020, according to Climate Bonds 
Initiative.
 
 The increased momentum has meant that banks are engaging more actively with 
their corporate clients while shareholders are rallying behind green groups 
demanding companies cut emissions, lift governance and improve social 
responsibilities.
 
 So called responsible investors also shun industries that negatively affect 
society, including companies that produce or invest in alcohol, tobacco, 
gambling and guns.
 
 Such activism prompted Australian supermarket giant Woolworths <WOW.AX> to 
finally agree, after years of engagement with investors, to offload its 
profitable pub and liquor business in July.
 
 "Poker machines are horrible things but they are very profitable," said Bruce 
Smith, another portfolio manager at Alphinity. "Once they get rid of that 
business, Woolworths will become a possible investment for us."
 
 Woolworths did not specifically comment on its decision, saying only that the 
move would help it simplify its structure and focus on the retail business.
 
 (Additional reporting by Gaurav Dogra in BENGALURU; Editing by Vidya Ranganathan 
and Jacqueline Wong)
 
				 
			[© 2019 Thomson Reuters. All rights 
				reserved.] Copyright 2019 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, 
			broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.  
			Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |