ESG News
MANAGERS MOVE TO RE-BRAND FUNDS DESPITE GREEN REVENUE GAP
The EU’s new ESG disclosure rules have sparked a rush among fund providers to embrace the Article 8 and 9 labels, yet only a fraction of their revenue is invested in green pro- jects, research revealed. Mona Dohle reports.
The publication of the final draft of the EU’s new Sustainability Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) in October last year has sparked a rush among fund providers to rebrand their prod- ucts as sustainable. But while the new rules are aimed at tack- ling greenwashing, there are early indications that not all of the funds recently marketed as green are as sustainable as they appear to be.
Under the new rules, which are set to be implemented in July, funds can be classified as either Article 6 funds, which have no sustainability target, Article 8 funds that promote some sus-
classified as Article 8, according to Morningstar, which tracks the adoption of SFDR rules on a quarterly basis. Overall, some 43% of funds sold in the EU, accounting for €4trn (£3.3trn) in assets, have been listed as either Article 8 or 9. Since the intro- duction of these new rules, more than 1,800 funds have been upgraded from article 6 to 8 or 9, according to the data provider.
Greenwashing However, the assessment whether a fund is Article 8 or 9-com- pliant is put forward by the asset managers themselves. Article 8 rules only specify that the fund should display some social and environmental characteristics. Some fund providers took this as an incentive to improve reporting standards in their fund documentation, but not change the investment strategy of the fund in question. Fund providers which have changed the documentation of their Article 8 or 9 funds but not the investment strategy risk could be accused of greenwashing, warned Morningstar. The fund ratings provider has removed more than 1,000 funds from its ESG ranking that had self-classified as Article 8 funds but failed to implement ESG criteria decisively.
ESG revenue
tainability objective but do not have it as their overall agenda, or Article 9, which are funds that have the specific objective to fulfil a sustainability goal.
While the UK fund industry is no longer directly bound by EU rules, the new SFDR standards will have significant knock-on effects. Only a month after the publication, the FCA announced that it will launch its own investment taxonomy aimed at tight- ening reporting standards for ESG compliance in investment funds. Moreover, the EU rules do apply to investments by UK investors in EU registered funds.
Rush to rebrand
The fund industry has responded with a rush to rebrand. Funds that were initially Article 6 were swiftly reclassified as Article 8 funds, among a growing realisation that this had become the new minimum standard. This trend was accelerated by asset owners and fund of fund managers increasingly demanding a rebranding. By the end of 2021, some 66% of all equity funds and about a quarter of all bond funds were classified as Article 9 funds, while half of all equity funds and a third of all bond funds were
Another way of assessing the effectiveness of ESG investments is by looking at the actual revenue channelled into green objec- tives, the mitigation of climate change, in particular. Research by sustainability technology platform Clarity AI screened a universe of 2,000 equity funds with an SFDR label and almost a third of those described themselves as Article 8 funds. It found that among these funds, less than 4% of their revenue went into green projects. The percentage was slightly higher among Article 9 funds, which had 8% green revenues, according to a whitepaper published by Clarity AI. But the research also highlighted significant variation by sec- tor. Funds focussed on utilities generally scored much better, with 25% of their revenue allocated to green projects. In con- trast, the industrials sector is flagged up as a laggard. While nearly a third of its assets qualifies for green projects, only 3.7% of its revenue is allocated to them, Clarity AI stressed. Overall, it warns that Article 8 funds in particular fail to trigger decisive action to tackle climate change. “Investors should not be misled by Article 8 labelling of funds, which will likely not mean a higher share of green revenues than non-sustainable funds”, is the scathing conclusion of the whitepaper. The shortcoming of the EU’s Green Taxonomy bears impor- tant lessons for the UK, which is due to publish the details of its green taxonomy later this year. One insight could be that expecting asset managers to do their own homework on ESG reporting will lead to disappointing results.
Issue 112 | April 2022 | portfolio institutional | 23
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
