Industry view – UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association
THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSIDERING A SOCIAL TAXONOMY
Oscar Warwick Thompson is head of policy and communications at UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association (UKSIF)
Last year’s draft report on a social taxonomy by the European Commission’s advisory body, the Platform on Sustaina- ble Finance, provided valuable momen- tum in the debate over how to address social issues in investment portfolios. UKSIF, which represents more than 270 members of the sustainable finance com- munity, has seen rising awareness of the inter-connections between social and environmental and governance issues. Social issues such as the treatment of employees, equality and modern-day slav- ery are being increasingly addressed in our members’ policies and engagement. We have continued to call on the govern- ment and our sector to comprehensively consider social risks and their impact, which are key drivers of long-term value. Our hope is that the Platform’s final report (which we still await) can advance the consideration of a social taxonomy here at home. The government has taken some tentative steps; for example, the Department for Work and Pensions is expected to outline the next steps in exploring how occupational pension schemes are addressing material social risks in their investments, while the Pen- sions Minister has warned of action if trustees do not meet their legal obliga- tions here. While welcoming this focus, we would like to see this work progress much further and believe government
should consult with the sector on the merits of introducing a social taxonomy. It could serve as a tool for investors to assess the social impact and performance of companies, helping direct capital to activities substantially contributing to, for example, improved living conditions for certain groups. Providing criteria to meas- ure social sustainability goals should help investors make informed investment decisions and minimise risks in the event they are not sufficiently evaluating the social implications of their investments. We envisage companies would strive to make sure their activities are having posi- tive social sustainability impacts and boost their standards to achieve this. It is a natural next step to adopt a holistic view of sustainability requiring ESG issues to be collectively seen together. The UK’s commitment to consult on a social taxon- omy would be a positive signal, demon- strating the recognition that addressing social challenges is required to be a true global leader on sustainable finance and achieve a net-zero future. We recognise the barriers the UK could face in implementing this, which the Plat- form’s report has identified, but this should not delay ambition. Many inves- tors are increasingly supportive of a social taxonomy, including a large number of UKSIF’s members. A key barrier is the diversity of metrics on social factors compared to climate change. These range from diversity, supply chain conditions, labour rights, the just transi- tion, human rights, anti-corruption and fair pay, among a multitude of others. Investors will consider a different set with each of their investments, identifying
those most material on behalf of their cli- ents, which can be complex. Accommo- dating this range of issues is challenging, and developing robust, science-based cri- teria in the same way as climate change will not be possible, with internationally agreed principles likely needing to form the foundation of a social taxonomy. Related to this will be effectively quantify- ing social risks, for example, in investors’ portfolios, as social issues are inherently subjective and place-based, making prior- itisation more difficult in the investment process. We remain far off having deci- sion-useful data from companies, making it complex for investors to neatly reflect ‘S’ issues in their investment policies and stewardship. One example is companies’ treatment of outsourced workers in their supply chains. Data issues can be exacer- bated where countries do not have good corporate transparency or a free press, with ESG data providers unable to some- times pick up reliable information. We support initiatives promoting active stewardship on social issues, which should address the lack of data, such as the UN PRI’s collaborative initiative to help investors prioritise the most serious human rights risks within their engage- ment activity. Consideration could be given to a Social Action 100+ initiative to identify a common set of social areas of focus and common metrics that are most material for each sector.
Despite barriers, we continue to advocate for a social taxonomy in the UK, believing it can drive a positive focus among finan- cial services and businesses in addressing the social challenges we face that are crit- ical to delivering a net-zero future.
Publisher portfolio Verlag Office 5.08 – 5th floor Fleet House 8 –12 New Bridge Street London EC4V 6AL +44 (0)20 7822 8522
london@portfolio-verlag.com
Editor Mark Dunne
m.dunne@portfolio-institutional.co.uk
Deputy editor Mona Dohle
m.dohle@
portfolio-institutional.co.uk
Senior writer Andrew Holt
a.holt@portfolio-institutional.co.uk 10 | portfolio institutional | February 2022 | issue 110
Publisher John Waterson
j.waterson@portfolio-institutional.co.uk
Head of sales Clarissa Huber
c.huber@
portfolio-institutional.co.uk
Business development manager Basit Mohammed
b.mohammed@
portfolio-institutional.co.uk
Head of roundtables Mary Brocklebank
m.brocklebank@
portfolio-institutional.co.uk
Marketing executive Hannah Carry
h.carry@
portfolio-institutional.co.uk
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 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48
