While COVID-19 helped accelerate the ESG agenda, the tragic invasion of Ukraine is likely to further speed up its evolution.
The pandemic shone a spotlight on the “S” — or social issues — of ESG. The conflict in Ukraine has brought the “G” (the governance component) to investors’ attention. At the same time, a growing understanding of the implications and importance of climate change has meant that “E” (the environmental piece) continues to dominate investors’ ESG focus.
These insights and many more surfaced in Capital Group’s annual ESG global study published in May 2022. Collecting views from more than 1,100 institutional and wholesale investment professionals across Europe, North America and Asia-Pacific, the study showed ESG trends continue to gain traction.
Momentum behind ESG and sustainability continues to build, fueled by investor demand and a desire to make an impact. Compared with the previous year, a higher proportion of global investors describe their ESG stance as one of conviction, acceptance or compliance. This global cohort of ESG adopters rose to almost 90%, up from 84% in 2021. Over the same period, the number who are either on the sidelines or non-adopters has fallen to 11%, down from 16% the previous year.
Conviction in ESG is further underscored in the finding that just 13% of global investors agree ESG is a passing fad and will go out of fashion. This demonstrates how most investors view ESG as a permanent and pre-eminent part of the investment landscape.
The structural and societal pressures arising from climate change have been key in driving environmental issues — the “E” in ESG — to the top of investors’ sustainability concerns. The study showed that the environment continued to dominate allocation decisions, with investors increasing their focus on “E,” which rose from the year before (47% vs. 44%).
Although investors indicated an even greater focus on environmental issues in 2022, there are signs that this may change in the future as people recognize an imbalance. When asked whether social issues are being overlooked by this environmental focus, 41% of investors agreed.
Qualitative research we carried out as part of the study suggests some reasons behind these views. It is possible that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic raised greater awareness on the importance of safe working conditions, access to health care and education.
As strict lockdowns were imposed across the world, companies operating in the retail and health care sectors came under particular pressure to ensure the safety and well-being of their workers. Many responded by providing protective equipment or extending paid sick leave to temporary staff and contractors. Other companies provided their goods and services free of charge — such as internet access, video conferences and remote learning to schools and universities — as a way of supporting their broader communities.
With an increased understanding that social issues can have material and far-reaching consequences for companies and the communities they serve, the impact of the pandemic may have prompted investors to look across a wider range of ESG issues.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine also brought several ESG issues into the spotlight, with concerns around governance flagged by respondents in the survey.
The global response to Russian aggression was not just political, as the corporate sector was quick to take a stance. Many companies made statements regarding their business exposure to Russia.
At Capital Group, we followed company actions closely. While much of the media focus was on actions announced publicly, we paid particular attention to companies that had not made public statements. Digging behind the public pronouncements helped us to gain a better understanding of the impacts and how companies’ license to operate may be affected.
Sentiments on governance concerns were echoed by a number of investors surveyed.
“I think the crisis should, and probably will, bring governance into sharper focus,” says the CIO of an independent advisory firm. “But that should have always been the case — it’s sad that we need a tragedy and war to highlight the importance of the ‘G’.”
A portfolio manager at a wealth management firm agreed: “I think the crisis has strengthened the ESG argument because it really is making people focus on what’s important — and that’s social governance, which is right up there in my view.”
The impacts of major world events have always been felt in investment markets. Building an understanding of the first-, second- and third-order effects of events and how these might impact investment decisions is not new. Viewing the consequences of these events through an ESG lens can provide a richer perspective and help frame events for investors.
However, there are still challenges to overcome, which the survey also highlighted.
A theme that came through loud and clear in last year’s study, and was reinforced in this year’s results, is the difficulties experienced in accessing and interpreting ESG data. Specific issues raised by respondents included access to ESG data, consistency between ESG data providers and transparency of benchmark and index data.
Difficulties with the robustness of data and inconsistent scores are hampering the ability of investors to incorporate ESG considerations into their investment process.
The No. 1 challenge global investors cited in implementing ESG investments is a lack of consistency between different ESG rating providers (25%). This was closely followed by difficulties accessing ESG information and data.
Inconsistent and inaccurate ESG scores result from a multitude of factors. These include backward-looking data that fails to adequately assess the future value of companies transitioning to address sustainability issues. These companies could play an important role in driving change and may become tomorrow’s ESG leaders. The subjective nature of scoring systems also means there are varying views on the relative importance and material impact of different ESG factors in different sectors and countries.
Consistency in regulation was also raised as a significant roadblock. Investors are looking to regulators to provide common standards and definitions. When asked what the ESG regulatory framework should prioritize in their respective countries, the highest proportion of respondents cite the need to harmonize global standards, taxonomies and metrics (45%). This indicates investors are struggling to untangle an increasingly complex and disjointed web of global regulations issued by different entities.
Overcoming data challenges will help ESG to broaden its reach. Results from our global study show that momentum behind ESG and sustainability continues to build. Despite challenges around data, it appears that investors’ awareness of ESG topics is not just increasing, it is also broadening to cover a wider range of social and governance issues.
For a more detailed look at the latest findings, check out the full survey.
Investments are not FDIC-insured, nor are they deposits of or guaranteed by a bank or any other entity, so they may lose value.
Investors should carefully consider investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. This and other important information is contained in the fund prospectuses and summary prospectuses, which can be obtained from a financial professional and should be read carefully before investing.
Statements attributed to an individual represent the opinions of that individual as of the date published and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Capital Group or its affiliates. This information is intended to highlight issues and should not be considered advice, an endorsement or a recommendation.
All Capital Group trademarks mentioned are owned by The Capital Group Companies, Inc., an affiliated company or fund. All other company and product names mentioned are the property of their respective companies.
Use of this website is intended for U.S. residents only.
American Funds Distributors, Inc.
This content, developed by Capital Group, home of American Funds, should not be used as a primary basis for investment decisions and is not intended to serve as impartial investment or fiduciary advice.