PI Partnership – BlackRock Partnership – PPI
Lauren Wilkinson is a senior policy researcher at the Pensions Policy Institute (PPI)
ESG: STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS
Following changes in regulation and an increasing recognition of the financially- material nature of environmental, social and governance (ESG) risks, we are see- ing more schemes engaging with such strategies than ever before and to a great- er extent. However, there is still work to be done before we reach a point where all schemes are engaging in a meaningful way. For some, this may mean more sup- port and guidance. But there may be a need for stronger intervention for those who are finding it difficult to recognise the financially-material nature of ESG risks.
In the early years of ESG and responsible investing, funds predominantly focused on ethical, rather than financial, consider- ations. This perceived conflation of ESG and ethics led to confusion and a belief among some that ESG investment was in opposition to schemes’ fiduciary duties. This confusion can be traced back to the often-cited case of Cowan vs Scargill in 1984, which found that investment in line with union policy was not considered a le- gitimate basis to discharge the fiduciary duty to act in members’ best financial in- terests. This led to fiduciaries favouring a narrower definition of members’ inter- ests, that often excluded the consideration of ESG. The legacy of this case has contin- ued to be a challenge for ESG investment, although investors increasingly recognise the financially-material risks associated with such issues, following efforts to dis-
entangle the ethical from the financial in recent decades. From the 1990s onwards, especially fol- lowing 2008’s financial crisis, there has been an increased focus on the long-term impacts of investments. This arose from concerns that not all schemes were invest- ing in a way that prioritised the long-term sustainability of returns or accounted for all the potential long-term risks, where possible. During this period, we also saw an increase in ESG-focused research, the introduction of voluntary codes and tar- gets and a broader range of ESG invest- ment approaches emerging. In 2012, the Kay Review recommended that the government do more to address disincentives and perceived regulatory barriers for trustees and providers to en- gage with companies. This included es- tablishing an investors’ forum and mak- ing it easier for schemes to engage collectively and share information. It was followed by Law Commission reports in 2014 and 2017 that called for greater clari- ty in regulation to provide guidance to schemes that were struggling to under- stand their obligations in relation to ESG. Over the past two years, evolution in the ESG investment landscape has accelerat- ed. In 2018, the House of Commons Envi- ronmental Audit Committee published two reports which called for a greater fo- cus on sustainability in investing. 2018 al- so saw many developments at an EU lev- el,
with the European Commission
publishing regulations which aim to inte- grate ESG into the investment and adviso- ry process in a consistent manner across sectors, the introduction of the Share- holder Rights Directive II and a Sustaina- ble Finance report establishing recom- mendations to make ESG investment easier across Europe. And, of course, we have seen increased SIP regulation relat- ing to ESG considerations, with schemes now required to not only illustrate how they have considered ESG factors when designing their investment strategy but produce an implementation statement ex-
32 | portfolio institutional December–January 2021 | issue 99
plaining how they have followed and act- ed upon the stated investment policies set out in their SIP. We are now in a position where regula- tion is strongly encouraging pension schemes to increase their engagement with ESG issues and the rapid change we have observed in recent years in the ESG investment landscape does not look set to slow down, making it important that schemes are supported to appropriately integrate these material risks into their investment portfolio. Many schemes rec- ognise that their ESG investment strategy is a work in progress, as supported by re- sponses to our Engaging with ESG survey (the findings of which will be published in 2021). This suggests that the landscape is still developing and more schemes are moving towards a greater consideration of ESG risk factors. However, it will take time for this process to work through, particularly for schemes that were not en- gaging on ESG prior to the regulatory changes, and the specific support that schemes might need for further develop- ment is less clear. Some of this evolution will happen organically, with more en- gaged schemes who have greater levels of resource and expertise pushing develop- ment forward and creating more opportu- nities and insight for schemes that might be lagging behind. Other schemes may need greater support or guidance from government and industry to fully inte- grate an appropriate ESG strategy. And those schemes that are still struggling to recognise the financial importance of in- tegrating ESG risks into their investment strategy may need stronger intervention.
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 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
