I am sceptical about trying to codify the E and the S. I would rather focus on the G because governance is dynamic, it can respond to positive developments and allow you to compare and contrast.


If you try to define the E and the S you end up with spurious accuracy which is potentially a gravy train for the charlatans who will tell you that they have found the best way of measur- ing these things.


I am particularly keen on the just transition aspects of the S. One must not become an ESG colonist. You must appreciate the transition countries have to go through to modernise their practices. But the G is the more dynamic way of ensuring that we keep people’s feet to the fire rather than having rigid meas- ures which may become out of date as the science changes.


Picking up on the reputational point, it is important that savers know what is being done in their name. I do not want invest- ment strategies determined by marketplace plebiscites because members watch a television programme tonight and will want you to exclude a particular category tomorrow. I am more in the engagement camp than the exclusion camp. When encouraging people to save, if we tell them what we are doing with their money, the impact it will have on their out- comes and the direction of travel when it comes to improving outcomes for wider society, they may be willing to save more. Saving more is probably the best way to improve outcomes rather than relying on the best asset manager in the land because if we do not give them the assets they cannot manage them and they cannot improve outcomes.


September 2022 portfolio institutional roundtable: Emerging market debt 17


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28