September



BpH InsightA Guide to Sustainable and ESG Investing September 2020BpH Wealth Management LLPOddstones HouseThompsons CloseHarpendenHerts AL5 4ESt 01582 461122e balance@bphwealth.co.ukbphwealth.co.ukAuthorised and Regulated by the Financial Conduct AuthorityAuthorised to Provide Independent AdviceContentsIntroductionThe History of Socially Responsible Investing and the Birth of the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) ApproachWhat is Socially Responsible Investing?What is the Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) approach?Are ESG factors material?The main types of ESG fundResearch on PerformanceIntroductionThe start of the new decade has signified a big step in the world’s path towards a more sustainable world. We have now entered what the United Nations calls the ‘decade of delivery’1 for its Sustainable Development Goals. The impact of climate change has become increasingly visible in the last decade. Business and finance leaders have quickly transitioned from denial to rushing to adopt more sustainable and responsible practices2. It is becoming increasingly clear that the financial sector has its part to play in bringing a more sustainable and socially desirable future. Throughout history, “Shareholder Maximisation” was the only thing that drove the decisions of company boards and share valuations. However, in recent years a new understanding is beginning to emerge. It is now common for CEO’s to talk about balancing the interests of not just shareholders, but all stakeholders. This includes considering the impact of their firm on society and the environment2. This attitude has also been affirmed by institutional investors. In a 2019 Edelman survey3 of over 600 institutional investors in developed countries, 84% agreed that companies should balance shareholders’ needs with those of their customers, employees, suppliers and communities.You may have already heard the terms Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) and Environmental, Social and Governance investing (ESG) before, but may not be too sure about what these terms actually mean. In fact, many in the industry are struggling to keep up. This new paradigm of investing is a rapidly changing space and has created many challenges. Constant innovation and regulatory changes mean definitions are yet to be settled. However, this does not mean there are not clear opportunities for investors like you. Well-founded and researched products are available. This document will help to explain the newest discourse on sustainable and ESG investing. It will first take you through the history of these innovations, before explaining the most common terms used in this space. Many who have an interest in investing for more than just profit will naturally still be concerned about performance. Indeed, BpH Wealth has always believed it is not advisable to make significant sacrifices to returns for any reason, not least because the proceeds from investing can be used to pursue causes you may have a personal interest in. However, recent research has shown it is possible to invest with social concerns in mind without sacrificing returns. The final part of this document will outline some key research that illustrates this. The History of Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) and the Birth of the Environmental Social and Governance Approach (ESG)ESG was started to manage risk, not to pursue moral valuesInstitutional investors have always searched for better ways to manage risk.?They adopt academic research and hire the academics behind the research to refine the models. They continually strive to create increasingly sophisticated portfolio management techniques. They have pushed researchers to collect more, and better data, and they have encouraged companies to measure and report on more metrics.ESG stands for Environmental, Social and Governance. Under ESG, raw material costs, pollution controls, and environmental lawsuits are formalised as environmental factors. Social risks are issues such as labour disputes and human rights violations and issues including executive pay and board independence are called governance.?Institutional investors have been calculating environmental, social and governance factors as part of their attempt to understand the risks of their investments for many years4. There are clear reasons for this. Good governance has been shown to have a positive effect on a company’s growth and survivability, whereas the profitability of companies which are shown to have negative social or environmental impacts can be hurt. A 2019 study by Bank of America5 showed that 90% of companies in the S&P 500 that declared bankruptcy from 2005 were below average on environmental and social scores. These factors are clearly worthy of consideration, even to the purely profit driven investor.Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) was a separate discipline to ESGThe Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) movement has been around for far longer than ESG. This group of investors want to ensure their money is not invested in practices they deem socially undesirable or does go towards things they want to encourage.In 2004, a joint initiative of over 50 major financial institutions was set up under an invitation by the UN4. The goal was to find ways of investing that would facilitate more sustainable, socially desirable path to world development as well as stronger and more resilient financial markets. From this resulting 2005 report, entitled Who Cares Wins6, the ESG method was cited as the definitive way to responsibly invest while minimising the risk to returns. This report helped to catapult ESG into the forefront of the discourse on responsible investing.ESG has helped to push SRI into the mainstreamAlthough the kind of considerations made in ESG investing have been made before. It would be inaccurate to say that ESG is nothing new.?It has developed into its own category of investing because of the systematic way investors are now employing it. The ESG methodology is now hailed as a new way of investing to produce socially desirable outcomes while minimising the difference in risk and renumeration generated by more traditional, solely returns motivated, investments.Assets managed for sustainability have multiplied in recent years, propelled in part by ESG. US SIF (the US Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment) reports that “the market size of sustainable7, responsible and impact investing in the United States in 2018 is $12 trillion or one quarter of all US investment under professional management.” JP Morgan predicts the international ESG market is likely to reach $45 trillion of assets under management by the end of 20208.The financial services industry has adapted rapidly as a result. New research firms have sprung up and traditional firms have added resources to deliver the quantity and quality of the data that makes ESG investing possible. Regulators have amended policy and reporting standards to facilitate the demand from both institutional and individual investors. Crucially, research from both academia and industry show that ESG investments can perform as well as conventional strategies (see ‘research on performance’ section).Evidence-based products are available to you with ESG integration if you wish to introduce moral concerns into your portfolio. Prudent implementation requires a well thought out plan with carefully selected funds. The graph7 below shows the growth of sustainable, responsible and impact investing in the US from 1995 – 2018.Changes in regulationOne significant restriction on the ability of institutional investors to provide socially responsible investment options has been their fiduciary duty. Historically, fiduciary duty has meant that institutional investors are required by law to pursue the best returns to their clients, irrespective of any other consideration. Over the last few years this has been changing. The United Nations Environmental Programme’s Finance Initiative published a report in 20199. The report detailed how from 2015 the integration of environmental, social and governance issues into investment decisions has become an increasingly standard part of the legal requirements for institutional investors, along with requirements to consider the sustainability-related preferences of their clients and beneficiaries. The UK has recently followed this trend, bringing the meaning of fiduciary duty under new scrutiny. This has resulted in a law change in 201810, embedding SRI considerations into rules for contract-based pension schemes. The UK Financial Conduct Authority also stated in October 201911 that financial services firms should “integrate consideration of material climate change risks and opportunities into their business, risk and investment decisions”. These developments are likely to lead to many new opportunities for Socially Responsible Investing in the future.Covid-19 and SRIMany initially saw the Covid-19 pandemic as a potential disaster for SRI. In a time of financial turmoil it is feasible that businesses and investors could put off their commitments to operate more responsibly, seeing it as an unaffordable luxury12. However, the downturn caused by Covid-19 has surprised many commentators. In June the Financial Times reported "While investors fled many mainstream investment funds during the March sell-off, ESG funds based in the UK had overall inflows, according to Morningstar, the data provider. Investors piled a net ?2.9bn into ESG investment funds in the first three months of 2020, making it the second-best quarter for such funds13.” Many parallels are being drawn between the unforeseen systemic risks of a pandemic, and that of climate change. Governments, businesses and investors are seeming to contemplate their impact on the world. What is Socially Responsible Investing?SRI is an umbrella termThe term SRI often causes confusion as it can be used to describe many types of investments. SRI is generally used as a broad term encompassing many types of investment strategy. All investments that are made with social or environmental, rather than purely financial, concerns can be called SRI. However, many use SRI to refer to more specific types of investment and some substitute the ‘social’ in the acronym, using SRI to refer to ‘sustainable and responsible impact investing’.The types of SRIThe first investment funds known as SRI were developed to allow investors to avoid companies they disliked due to their moral principles, for instance tobacco companies, weapons manufacturers or big polluters. This original form is now called exclusionary or negative screen investing. Other SRI strategies have been developed, including inclusionary or positive screen and thematic investing, where only companies aligned to the investors’ values are bought. More recently, impact investing has become popular; here investors provide capital to innovative companies working to solve social problems like endemic unemployment or ex-offender’s rehabilitation.Eurosif is the leading European association for the promotion and advancement of sustainable and responsible investment across Europe.Every two years, Eurosif conducts a European SRI Study10, one of the few sources in Europe highlighting the state of the European (SRI) Market, as well as the trends in individual European countries. Noting that each European member state has different interpretations of SRI, the Study defines seven SRI Strategies:Sustainability and themed investments – renewables, transport, buildings wasteBest in class investment selection – focus on the best ESG score in sectorExclusion of holdings from investment universe – Weapons, Tobacco, nuclear…Norms based screening – adherence to global and UN guidelinesIntegration of ESG factors in financial analysisEngagement and voting on sustainability matters – Changing corporate behaviourImpact Investing – direct environmental and societal changeThe Study covers professionally managed assets in 12 country markets: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. In total 278 asset managers and owners with combined assets under management of 20 trillion Euros participated representing a market coverage of 79%.*The 2018 Study10 presents the status of SRI in Europe and the UK as shown in the following charts:1257300158115Eur in millions00Eur in millions*This estimation is based on EUROSIF’s 2018 estimate of the total assets under management (AuM) in Europe, in its 8th edition of its biannual Market Study in November 2018, available at: What is Environmental, Social and Governance Investing?How does ESG fit in to SRI?As no official definitions are in place, it can be hard to know what is being referred to when you hear the term ESG (environmental, social and governance) investing. Some believe it should only describe a particular methodology, others use it almost synonymously with SRI as ESG investing is quickly becoming one of its most popular forms. Certainly, older style funds featuring more arbitrary exclusions of industries based on moral principles are being replaced by ESG funds. However, other forms of SRI, namely impact investing, are more focussed on specific goals than a typical ESG fund. We think it is best to use ESG to refer to any investment that includes environmental, social and governance considerations as well as returns. This does not make ESG and SRI the same thing. ESG can be seen as a significant subset, but SRI also includes many other types of investment. For example, thematic investing, which may address environmental but not social or governance factors, or impact investing, which tends to be much more specialised in promoting a specific cause, with far less focus on returns.Source: G8 Social Impact Investment Taskforce14The spectrum above helps to illustrate where ESG fits into the realm of SRI. ESG investing sits under the ‘responsible’ and ‘sustainable’ headings of the diagram. Some ESG funds will simply reduce environmental, social and governance risks, while others will seek opportunities in this space. However, although ESG funds pursue objectives other than financial, maximising returns within the ESG criteria they have set will still be the primary objective. Typically, there will be no attempt to formally measure the impact of an ESG fund, their only metric for performance will be their financial return. On the other hand, Impact investing, seen on the right of the diagram, will focus on specific themes or objectives and their performance will be judged by with these goals in mind. For this reason, the performance of an impact investment will typically deviate from market returns far more than an ESG fund. What can you expect from a fund with ‘ESG integration’?Although sometimes used as a broader term, ‘ESG integration’ is normally used to describe a specific methodology for a fund. To avoid confusion, we prefer to use the other name for this methodology, ‘systematic ESG funds’. Systematic ESG funds involve the collection of ESG data to inform its investment decisions. Managers will either buy ESG scores from large data providers or obtain it from in-house ESG analysts. These scores are used alongside traditional financial measures such as price to earnings or book to market ratios to select securities. Every fund manager has their own proprietary approach to investment portfolio construction, and with ESG it is no different. The weight managers put on the different factors will vary widely. The ESG Integration Framework-Source: CFA and UNPRI15Many funds termed ESG today do not use this methodology. Funds claiming to be ESG may be using older methodologies of SRI, such as inclusionary and exclusionary funds. These types of funds tend to start with a traditional index-based fund and exclude or include companies based on ESG principles. However, this does not mean all SRI investments are ESG. For example, an SRI fund that excludes what used to be described as ‘sin’ stocks such as tobacco, gambling, and weapons manufacture would not be an ESG investment. This is because it largely only includes social concerns rather than the more holistic ESG considerations. What factors are measured for ESG investing? The following chart shows the different criteria used for each element of environmental, social and governance used by sustainable investors. Environmental criteria look at how a company performs as a steward of the natural environment: energy use, waste, pollution, natural resource conservation and animal treatment. They also evaluate which environmental risks might affect a company’s income and how the company is managing those risks. For example, a company might face environmental risks related to its ownership of contaminated land, an oil spill it was responsible for, its disposal of hazardous waste, its management of toxic emissions or its compliance with the government’s environmental regulations.Social criteria cover companies’ business relationships and whether they and their suppliers share the same values, look after their employees in high standard working conditions and contribute to the local communities in which they operate. These considerations are subjective by definition, and it is important to consider what social aims are important to you before investing in a fund that has social aims. For instance, while some may not want to invest in companies that produce alcoholic drinks, some may have no problem doing ernance captures issues like board independence, executive pay and employee ownership. Governance is the most well-researched factor. The data has been in company filings for decades. The abundance of good data has allowed researchers to compare thousands of companies over long periods of time. Many studies indicate that poor corporate governance can adversely affect corporate financial performance16.Are ESG Factors Material?Some ESG factors are more relevant than others depending on the industry that a company operates in. For example, health and safety issues under the social “S” factor are more material to a mining company than a bank. A mining company with fewer employee related accidents could get a better social score. This would be meaningful in analysing risk of this specific company relative to its competitors within the mining industry. But the absence of employee accidents at a financial firm would not necessarily indicate it is a lower risk firm within the financial services industry. Clearly then, ESG factors do not create a uniform risk measurement across different sectors. Rather the issues under each factor are evaluated for its relevance and materiality at the company and industry level.Many investors and experts argue ESG factors will become more material in the near term17. Not least because investors and other stakeholders are beginning to encourage firms to adopt ESG practices. This can become financially material when purchasing and investment decisions are being made on the basis of ESG considerations alongside financial ones. Many also point to regulatory changes stemming from commitments such as the Paris Agreement,18 where countries pledged to reduce their carbon emissions. The signatories to the agreement must identify ways in which their country can mitigate greenhouse gas levels through renewable energy, energy reduction and protection of national carbon sinks. If these countries increase the amount they regulate, tax, or otherwise price carbon, companies that have higher carbon emissions will experience higher costs. ESG managers are attempting to account for that risk now rather than later.The Main Types of ESG FundExclusionary ESG fundsAlso known as ‘negative screen’ funds, these funds should reflect the market the most out of any variety of ESG fund. Exclusionary funds are generally based off a market tracking index and so provide comparable diversity and exposure to risk to a regular market capitalisation style fund. However, exclusionary ESG funds will have exclusion criteria based on ESG principles and will not invest in companies who meet these criteria. Some of the most common exclusions are tobacco companies, controversial weapons manufacturers and fossil fuel extractors. These funds can be seen as the best bet for securing close to market returns while minimising investment in socially undesirable practices.Inclusionary ESG fundsAlso known as ‘positive screen’ funds, these are a relatively new type of fund which use a positive rather than negative approach when picking its holdings. Inclusionary funds use a ‘ratings-based approach’. These funds rate each company individually on ESG standards, providing scores for environmental, social and governance. The companies included in the fund will only have an ESG score higher than a set rating, e.g. higher than an average of 3.5 out of 5 for E, S and G. Inclusionary ESG funds involve the creation of measures or proxy measures to track each company’s performance in terms of the environmental, social and governance issues previously decided on. The chart below has some examples of this.CHART: ESG Factors – Issues and Metrics (adapted from MSCI ESG Ratings19)ENVIRONMENTNatural ResourcesPollution & WasteClimate ChangeEnvironmental Opportunities SOCIALHuman CapitalProduct LiabilityStakeholder OppositionSocial OpportunitiesGOVERNANCECorporate BehaviourCorporate GovernanceEXAMPLE ISSUES:Greenhouse Gas EmissionsEnergy EfficiencyHealth & SafetyLabour RightsBoard IndependenceExecutivePayEXAMPLE METRICS:C02 Emissions Per Unit ProducedEnergy Use Per Square MeterEmployee Accidents Relative to Total Hours WorkedNumber of Active ControversiesIndependent Members Relative to Affiliated MembersExecutive Pay Ratio & DisclosuresSource Vert Asset Management20These kinds of funds are currently in their infancy and there can be some inconstancies in how companies are scored. Such ratings lack any standardisation or regulation at this time. Many inclusionary funds are also not strictly ESG, but more thematic. These only include companies that score well on key themes determined by the fund. Inclusionary funds can have a more easily observable impact but involve greater exposure to risk as they can be less diverse than other ESG funds. ESG metrics are rapidly improving in their accuracy and consistency. Systematic or ESG integration fundsAlthough technically SRI’s by definition, systematic ESG funds are not always values-based. Instead, many are an attempt to beat market performance by using ESG factors as non-financial measures of risk. However, this approach can be modified to not only include financially material ESG considerations but to be values-based as well. This section will describe the latter. It is important to understand the type of ESG fund you are considering before you invest to ensure it aligns with your goals.Taking what is sometimes known as a ‘tilting approach’, systematic ESG funds often build on the exclusionary model, but take it one step further. As well as excluding companies deemed undesirable by ESG criteria, the exposure of each company in the fund will be dictated by further ESG considerations, rather than being based solely on market capitalisation. Companies are analysed individually on ESG criteria using metrics similar to those used for inclusionary funds. Exposure is then adjusted so that high scoring companies get a higher asset allocation than those scoring lower. This is generally done so exposure to a certain sector is kept reasonably consistent with the market capitalisation, but companies within this sector are weighted according to their ESG score. For example, the automotive sector as a whole will have a weighting in the fund similar to its total market capitalisation, but those who produce cleaner running vehicles may be rewarded with a higher weighting and the biggest polluters may be underweighted.Source: Albion Strategic Consulting21Systematic ESG funds can provide a stronger social or environmental impact than solely exclusionary based funds as they reward and focus on industry leaders who adopt best practices in ESG considerations. These funds can be less stringent in their exclusionary criteria, which allows them to impact industries many exclusionary funds would not include. For example, investing in firms in the oil and gas sector, which have set out and are acting on clear goals for their transition to a carbon neutral future may have a greater social impact than simply not investing in the sector. These funds can still be significantly diverse so as to provide comparable returns to non-ESG market capitalisation-based funds. The number of holdings need not differ too much from an exclusionary fund, but the size of each holding depends on ESG criteria as well as each company’s market capitalisation.Systematic funds can suffer from similar inconsistencies to inclusionary funds in how companies are scored. Social considerations can be especially hard to score due to their innate subjectivity. Environmental considerations are more reliable and easier to measure than the other two factors. Numbers like CO2 Emissions per unit and energy use per square meter leave no room for subjectivity and have tried and tested methods for their measurement.Research on PerformanceHistorically, as fiduciaries, institutional investors had to satisfy themselves that the investment strategy they recommend is not expected to deliver lower returns. Although this is now changing, institutional investors still need ample proof returns are not negatively impacted by ESG. It is clear these institutions are comfortable investing this way and have the research to back it up.The performance implications of ESG investing have been researched extensively. With more and more data becoming available, the number and type of studies done have increased exponentially in recent years and it is now impossible to read them all. There are three types of performance studies particularly relevant to the investor. Company level studies research whether companies where managers make sustainable decisions have better corporate financial performance and better stock market performance. If investing for sustainability is a detriment to returns, investors should be concerned. Index level studies inform the investor if an ESG index has a performance differential to a conventional market index. This is important research as it sets performance expectations and determines benchmark selection. Fund level studies are perhaps the most practical as they reflect what investors actually got in returns.ESG Leaders vs Non-ESG CompaniesIn 2015, the University of Oxford’s Smith School22 of Enterprise and the Environment teamed up with Arabesque Asset Management to review 200 academic papers in a meta-study entitled “From Stockholder to Stakeholder.” The report researched the economic results of ESG practices by corporate managers and the implications for investors. The report observed three key points: 90% of the cost of capital studies show that sound ESG standards lower the cost of capital of individual companies; 88% of the studies show that solid ESG practices result in better corporate operational performance; 80% of the studies show that company stock price performance is positively influenced by good sustainability practices. The study also found active ownership allows investors to influence corporate behaviour and benefit from improvements in sustainable business practices. It concluded that ESG is in the best interest of investors and corporate managers to incorporate sustainability considerations into their decision-making processes. Companies that behave as better stewards of people and planet have improved corporate financials.ESG Portfolios vs Non-ESG PortfoliosTaking a portfolio view to evaluate performance, Deutsche Bank partnered with the University of Hamburg in 201525 to review 2,000 academic papers and found that the business case for ESG investing is empirically well-founded; they concluded that ESG indicators pay off financially and appear stable over time. The review uncovered that 62.6% of studies examined show a positive correlation between integrating ESG factors and portfolio performance. The study corroborated work done by others on issues of materiality (the extent to which ESG considerations impact company financials). They found that environmental and social issues vary in materiality across industries, but governance issues are integral to the proper functioning of all companies. For instance, where there is a lack of oversight on governance issues there is a potential for reputational risk and financial damage. Another conclusion was that it is more beneficial to apply the E, S and G independently, rather than together. The study also found similar performance links with ESG factors in bonds and real estate as well. ESG funds and their non-ESG equivalentsIn most cases, there is no substantial difference between Non-ESG funds and their ESG equivalent. As an example, here is the data for one fund BpH Wealth use in our portfolios, the Dimensional Global Core Equity Fund, and its sustainability equivalent. The sustainable fund excludes a small number of industries due to environmental and social considerations and tilts towards more sustainable companies systematically. Source: Dimensional Fund Advisors LtdThis data clearly shows very little difference between the performance of the two funds, with the sustainability version doing slightly better since its release in 2013. The data suggests there is no reason to expect substantial difference in the stock market performance of a market basket of stocks compared to a broad ESG basket of stocks. However, Investors should look at the construction of a fund or the index a fund is using carefully. Some funds and indices can lack diversification and show comparisons over short time periods.Conclusion on PerformanceThe research clearly shows that it is not necessary to underperform when investing for sustainability. Whether investing in individual stocks, indices, or funds, an investor may achieve market performance or better.Academics and practitioners have researched the effects of environmental, social and governance factors on the corporate financial performance of individual public companies. The ESG firms do better, on average. They have also tested how indices of more sustainable stocks perform versus the benchmark indices. There aren’t systematic differences. Studies have also measured how socially and environmentally responsible mutual funds performed against conventional funds. They found funds built on ESG factors tend to do a bit better.Investors who want sustainable investing with good performance can do so provided they act with care. They need only to abide by the fundamentals of investing that the successful institutional investors subscribe to. Do proper due diligence on the investment structure. Stay well diversified and disciplined and keep costs low.Risk warningsThis article is distributed for educational purposes and should not be considered investment advice or an offer of any security for sale. This article contains the opinions of the author but not necessarily the Firm and does not represent a recommendation of any particular security, strategy, or investment product. Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable but is not guaranteed.Past performance is not indicative of future results and no representation is made that the stated results will be replicated.Sources1United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2019. “SDG Summit”. Available from: “ 2Accenture. 2019. “The Decade To Deliver A Call To Business Action”. Available from: . “Edelman Trust Barometer, special report, institutional investors”. 2019. Available from: 4Kell. “The Remarkable Rise Of ESG”. 2018. Available from: 5BofA Merrill Lynch. “ESG from A to Z: a global primer”. 2019. Available from: 6Ivo Knoepfel. “Who Cares Wins”. 2004. Available from: 7USSIF. “Report on US Sustainable, Responsible and Impact Investing Trends”. 2018. Available from: 8JPMorgan. “Why COVID-19 Could Prove to Be a Major Turning Point for ESG Investing”. 2020. Available from: 9United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative. “Fiduciary duty in the 21st Century”. 2019. Available from: 10EuroSIF. European SRI Study. 2018. Available from: . “Climate Change and Green Finance: summary of responses and next steps”. 2019. Available from: 12Tett, G and Nauman, B. Moral Money: when the going gets tough does ESG go out of the window?. 2019. Available from: 13Mooney. Attracta. “ESG passes the Covid challenge”. 2020. Available from: 14 G8 Social Impact Investment Taskforce. “Allocating for Impact”. 2014. Available from: 15CFA Institute, UNPRI. “ESG Integration In Europe, The Middle East, and Africa: Markets, Practices, and Data. 2019. Available from: 16Delloite. “Good Governance driving Corporate Performance?”. 2016. Available from: 17Wold Economic Forum. “Embracing the New Age of Materiality, Harnessing the Pace of Change in ESG”. 2020. Available from: 18UNFCCC. “The Paris Agreement”. 2016. Available from: 19Morgan Stanley Capital International. ESG Ratings. 2020. Available from: 20Vert Asset Management. Sustainable Investing: From Niche to Normal. 2017. Available from: . Taking steps in the right direction, Our approach to more sustainable investing. 2020. Available on request22Clark, Gordon L. and Feiner, Andreas and Viehs, Michael. “From the Stockholder to the Stakeholder: How Sustainability Can Drive Financial Outperformance” .2015. Available from: or 23Morgan Stanley Capital International. MSCI ACWI Index (USD). 2020. Available from: 24Morgan Stanley Capital International. MSCI ACWI ESG Leaders Index (USD). 2020. Available from: 25Deutsche Bank. “ESG & Corporate Financial Performance: Mapping the global landscape”. 2015. Available from: ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download