Does Sustainable Investing Really Help the Environment?
Kanebridge News
    HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $1,599,192 (-0.51%)       Melbourne $986,501 (-0.24%)       Brisbane $938,846 (+0.04%)       Adelaide $864,470 (+0.79%)       Perth $822,991 (-0.13%)       Hobart $755,620 (-0.26%)       Darwin $665,693 (-0.13%)       Canberra $994,740 (+0.67%)       National $1,027,820 (-0.13%)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $746,448 (+0.19%)       Melbourne $495,247 (+0.53%)       Brisbane $534,081 (+1.16%)       Adelaide $409,697 (-2.19%)       Perth $437,258 (+0.97%)       Hobart $531,961 (+0.68%)       Darwin $367,399 (0%)       Canberra $499,766 (0%)       National $525,746 (+0.31%)                HOUSES FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 10,586 (+169)       Melbourne 15,093 (+456)       Brisbane 7,795 (+246)       Adelaide 2,488 (+77)       Perth 6,274 (+65)       Hobart 1,315 (+13)       Darwin 255 (+4)       Canberra 1,037 (+17)       National 44,843 (+1,047)                UNITS FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 8,675 (+47)       Melbourne 7,961 (+171)       Brisbane 1,636 (+24)       Adelaide 462 (+20)       Perth 1,749 (+2)       Hobart 206 (+4)       Darwin 384 (+2)       Canberra 914 (+19)       National 21,987 (+289)                HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $770 (-$10)       Melbourne $590 (-$5)       Brisbane $620 ($0)       Adelaide $595 (-$5)       Perth $650 ($0)       Hobart $550 ($0)       Darwin $700 ($0)       Canberra $700 ($0)       National $654 (-$3)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $730 (+$10)       Melbourne $580 ($0)       Brisbane $620 ($0)       Adelaide $470 ($0)       Perth $600 ($0)       Hobart $460 (-$10)       Darwin $550 ($0)       Canberra $560 (-$5)       National $583 (+$1)                HOUSES FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 5,253 (-65)       Melbourne 5,429 (+1)       Brisbane 3,933 (-4)       Adelaide 1,178 (+17)       Perth 1,685 ($0)       Hobart 393 (+25)       Darwin 144 (+6)       Canberra 575 (-22)       National 18,590 (-42)                UNITS FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 6,894 (-176)       Melbourne 4,572 (-79)       Brisbane 1,991 (+1)       Adelaide 377 (+6)       Perth 590 (+3)       Hobart 152 (+6)       Darwin 266 (+10)       Canberra 525 (+8)       National 15,367 (-221)                HOUSE ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND         Sydney 2.50% (↓)       Melbourne 3.11% (↓)       Brisbane 3.43% (↓)       Adelaide 3.58% (↓)     Perth 4.11% (↑)      Hobart 3.78% (↑)      Darwin 5.47% (↑)        Canberra 3.66% (↓)       National 3.31% (↓)            UNIT ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND       Sydney 5.09% (↑)        Melbourne 6.09% (↓)       Brisbane 6.04% (↓)     Adelaide 5.97% (↑)        Perth 7.14% (↓)       Hobart 4.50% (↓)       Darwin 7.78% (↓)       Canberra 5.83% (↓)       National 5.76% (↓)            HOUSE RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 0.7% (↑)      Melbourne 0.8% (↑)      Brisbane 0.4% (↑)      Adelaide 0.4% (↑)      Perth 1.2% (↑)      Hobart 0.6% (↑)      Darwin 1.1% (↑)      Canberra 0.7% (↑)      National 0.7% (↑)             UNIT RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 0.9% (↑)      Melbourne 1.4% (↑)      Brisbane 0.7% (↑)      Adelaide 0.3% (↑)      Perth 0.4% (↑)      Hobart 1.5% (↑)      Darwin 0.8% (↑)      Canberra 1.3% (↑)        National 0.9% (↓)            AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL HOUSES AND TREND         Sydney 28.7 (↓)       Melbourne 30.7 (↓)       Brisbane 31.0 (↓)       Adelaide 25.4 (↓)       Perth 34.0 (↓)       Hobart 34.8 (↓)       Darwin 35.1 (↓)       Canberra 28.5 (↓)       National 31.0 (↓)            AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL UNITS AND TREND         Sydney 25.8 (↓)       Melbourne 30.2 (↓)       Brisbane 27.6 (↓)       Adelaide 21.8 (↓)       Perth 37.8 (↓)       Hobart 25.2 (↓)       Darwin 24.8 (↓)       Canberra 41.1 (↓)       National 29.3 (↓)           
Share Button

Does Sustainable Investing Really Help the Environment?

Experts argue whether green investing is benefitting Wall Street or the planet.

Thu, Nov 11, 2021 11:59amGrey Clock 6 min

Sustainable investing has been a wild success. For Wall Street, at least.

Mutual funds and exchange-traded funds that focus on ESG (environmental, social, and governance issues) have made a lot of money for investment firms. Investors worried about climate change, in particular, have poured money into such funds, even though the funds charge higher fees than standard funds. More money is expected to flow in. The Labor Department has proposed a rule that would make it easier for investors to buy ESG funds in their 401(k) plans.

For some investors, it is purely a financial bet on a popular sector. Many others are hoping that the billions of dollars flowing into ESG will create positive change for the environment and other causes. But whether Wall Street or Mother Nature will be the ultimate beneficiary of all of these ESG dollars is a difficult question to answer.

We asked two experts to weigh in.

Tariq Fancy, chief executive officer of the Rumie Initiative, an education-technology nonprofit, has been a critic of ESG investing since leaving his job as chief investment officer for sustainable investing at BlackRock. Mr. Fancy says that much needs to be done to address climate change and prevent environmental disasters in the future. He says he doesn’t believe that ESG investing and financial products associated with it are a real help in achieving those goals. In his writings, including an online essay in August, “The Secret Diary of a Sustainable Investor,” he argues that funds that focus on ESG issues are profitable for Wall Street—but amount to a “dangerous placebo” that doesn’t cure the planet’s problems.

Alex Edmans, professor of finance at London Business School and an adviser on responsible investing to Royal London Asset Management and other investment firms, disagrees that the investing efforts represented by ESG funds and other private-investment-based strategies are as pointless as Mr. Fancy says. Dr. Edmans says that while he sees merit in some of Mr. Fancy’s criticisms, they are more sweeping and blanket than justified.

Here are edited excerpts of their discussion, conducted by email:

WSJ:You both have been advocates of sustainable investing, though you disagree about Wall Street’s role. Overall, do you feel better about the fate of the planet now that Wall Street has carved a niche for ESG?

MR. FANCY: Unfortunately, I feel worse about it. Is ESG good for the industry? Undoubtedly yes. It presents a lucrative new opportunity to raise funds and fees. And as an added bonus, it keeps government regulation to address the climate crisis at bay through feeding us yet another narrative in which our answers are solved by the “free market” magically self-correcting.

But good for the planet? I think even Alex would agree that there is no compelling empirical evidence that ESG investing mitigates climate change. Outside of a very small minority of private, long-term funds, such as venture-capital funds that back promising technological solutions to the climate crisis, the vast majority of funds marketed as ESG and sustainable funds today—as well as the nonbinding practice of ESG integration into existing investment processes—can’t point to any real-world impact that would not have otherwise occurred.

DR. EDMANS: I feel modestly better about it. Only modestly better, because Tariq is right that divestment has a negligible effect on company behaviour. But still better, because Tariq’s essay in August ignored the key mechanism through which sustainable investing has impact—engaging with companies on ESG issues. We’ve seen such impact with upstart hedge fund Engine No. 1 getting three climate-conscious directors appointed to Exxon’s board, and this isn’t just an isolated case. Indeed, careful research shows that engagement by index fundshedge funds and investor collective-action groups creates shared value for both shareholders and society. In particular, activism on ESG issues creates shareholder value as a byproduct, and activism to enhance long-term shareholder value ends up improving ESG.

MR. FANCY: Given the scale of the challenge presented by the climate crisis, we need to stay focused on the bigger picture: The ESG industry may be developing data sets, standards, and ushering in a wave of talented young people to work with them, but these tools are clearly not being combined in the right way right now—given that ESG assets and marketing spin are increasing rapidly alongside carbon emissions, inequality and a host of problems they’re meant to do something about. Are there a few isolated areas where ESG can create win-wins? Sure. But overall, the ESG industry today consists of products that have higher fees but little or no impact and narratives that mislead the public and delay the government reforms we need.

The small wins that Alex highlights, insofar as they exist, are nowhere near sufficient to rapidly decarbonize our economy on the timeline required, which only governments can catalyze through rapidly adjusting the incentives of all the players in the system, for example through a price on carbon. I refer to ESG’s small, mainly marketing wins as “giving wheatgrass to a cancer patient.” And there is now evidence emerging that they may be a giant societal placebo that lowers the likelihood of us following expert recommendations to address the climate crisis. In that sense, the wheatgrass isn’t harmless; it’s delaying the chemotherapy that science tells us we need immediately.

If you sell people a win-win fantasy, they’re less likely to accept the truth: Fighting climate change is going to require an economic transformation that will of course 100% involve the private sector, but must be sparked by government, including through taxes and regulation, and is going to be very difficult and cost us a lot of money.

WSJ:Dr. Edmans, you seem to have more faith than Mr. Fancy in the role of investors in helping the planet.

DR. EDMANS: Tariq is correct that government intervention is key. However, it’s not either/or. Investors launching sustainable funds does not prevent government action; in contrast, doing so encourages action by shifting the so-called Overton window—the range of ideas that is currently acceptable in the political mainstream. Moreover, many investors directly call for government action. In July, investors representing over $6 trillion in assets called for a global carbon price.

MR. FANCY: The only people shifting the Overton window toward a robust response to the climate crisis are brave activists, climate scientists, climate economists and other experts who are telling us that saving the planet will involve taking sacrifices, and needs to happen quickly. The Overton window wasn’t shifted by the ESG industry; on the contrary, today it’s unfortunately being wasted by it by diverting the growing momentum for climate action into yet another dodgy free-markets-self-correct fable.

WSJ: Mr. Fancy in his August essay made the analogy that capitalism is like a basketball game: Each is a competition to score (whether points or profits), and sportsmanship happens only when it’s required under the rules. The implication is that Wall Street doesn’t really have its heart in helping the planet.

DR. EDMANS: Many ESG advocates immediately got on the defensive and started arguing why Tariq’s essay is wrong. But we should first consider the possibility that it might be right. Relying on companies/investors to do the right thing without government action is as naive as having a professional basketball league without rules or referees, but clubs writing glossy purpose statements promising to play fair.

However, the analogy is imperfect in two ways. First, basketball is a zero-sum game. One team can only win if the other loses, and so instances of sportsmanship will be limited. But, in many cases, business is a positive-sum game. Rigorous evidence shows that “sportsmanship” to your stakeholders can also benefit shareholders, so it’s in investors’ own interest to take stakeholders seriously. For example, companies that treat their employees well outperformed their peers in total shareholder returns by a range of 2.3 to 3.8 percentage points a year over a 28-year period—that’s 89 points to 184 compounded. Similar results hold for companies that deliver value to customers, the environment and material stakeholders. Second, many key ESG dimensions can’t be regulated, such as corporate culture—hence the role for investors to hold companies to account.

There are certainly institutional investors who claim that their sustainability actions are a substitute for government action, and who launch ESG products with bold claims of impact to dupe unsuspecting clients to pay fat fees for them. Tariq’s essay has a lot of value in calling them out. However, most true ESG investors don’t do this. They don’t make unsupported claims of impact; their marketing argues that ESG’s main effect is to improve long-term returns rather than change company behaviour. Investors who are late to the ESG game are suddenly jumping on the bandwagon and making a lot of noise in a desperate attempt to play catch-up. Tariq is right to expose them, just like those who promote faddish weight-loss programs should be exposed—but this doesn’t mean the entire weight-loss industry is a ruse.

MR. FANCY: There are indeed areas where small win-wins exist, and where shareholder value can be enhanced by serving all stakeholders. I used to eagerly trumpet these areas in my previous role in sustainable investing. I’ve received an avalanche of messages from people thanking me for saying something they also felt needed to be said. Yet few want to say that out loud themselves, which I understand: I couldn’t have said the same things while I was still in the industry.

I think the ESG industry has the potential to move from serving as a dangerous placebo to playing a leading role in this change, but that requires us having an open and honest debate about how to arrive at a more rigorous and honest ESG 2.0.


Consumers are going to gravitate toward applications powered by the buzzy new technology, analyst Michael Wolf predicts

Chris Dixon, a partner who led the charge, says he has a ‘very long-term horizon’

Related Stories
The Great Wealth Transfer: How rich millennials will invest the billions coming their way
By Bronwyn Allen 01/03/2024
Japan Is Back. Is Inflation the Reason?
By GREG IP 01/03/2024
Welcome to the Era of BadGPTs
By BELLE LIN 29/02/2024
The Great Wealth Transfer: How rich millennials will invest the billions coming their way

The younger generation will bring a different mindset to how and where their newfound wealth is invested

By Bronwyn Allen
Fri, Mar 1, 2024 2 min

There is an enormous global wealth transfer in its beginning stages, whereby one of the largest generations in history – the baby boomers – will pass on their wealth to their millennial children. Knight Frank’s global research report, The Wealth Report 2024, estimates the wealth transfer set to take place over the next two decades in the United States alone will amount to US$90 trillion.

But it’s not just the size of the wealth transfer that is significant. It will also deliver billions of dollars in private capital into the hands of investors with a very different mindset.

Seismic change

Wealth managers say the young and rich have a higher social and environmental consciousness than older generations. After growing up in a world where economic inequality is rife and climate change has caused massive environmental damage, they are seeing their inherited wealth as a means of doing good.

Ben Whattam, co-founder of the Modern Affluence Exchange, describes it as a “seismic change”.

“Since World War II, Western economies have been driven by an overt focus on economic prosperity,” he says. “This has come at the expense of environmental prosperity and has arguably imposed social costs. The next generation is poised to inherit huge sums, and all the research we have commissioned confirms that they value societal and environmental wellbeing alongside economic gain and are unlikely to continue the relentless pursuit of growth at all costs.”

Investing with purpose

Mr Whattam said 66% of millennials wanted to invest with a purpose compared to 49% of Gen Xers. “Climate change is the number one concern for Gen Z and whether they’re rich or just affluent, they see it as their generational responsibility to fix what has been broken by their elders.”

Mike Pickett, director of Cazenove Capital, said millennial investors were less inclined to let a wealth manager make all the decisions.

“Overall, … there is a sense of the next generation wanting to be involved and engaged in the process of how their wealth is managed – for a firm to invest their money with them instead of for them,” he said.

Mr Pickett said another significant difference between millennials and older clients was their view on residential property investment. While property has generated immense wealth for baby boomers, particularly in Australia, younger investors did not necessarily see it as the best path.

“In particular, the low interest rate environment and impressive growth in house prices of the past 15 years is unlikely to be repeated in the next 15,” he said. “I also think there is some evidence that Gen Z may be happier to rent property or lease assets such as cars, and to adopt subscription-led lifestyles.”

Impact investing is a rising trend around the world, with more young entrepreneurs and activist investors proactively campaigning for change in the older companies they are invested in. Millennials are taking note of Gen X examples of entrepreneurs trying to force change. In 2022,  Australian billionaire tech mogul and major AGL shareholder, Mike Cannon-Brookes tried to buy the company so he could shut down its coal operations and turn it into a renewable energy giant. He described his takeover bid as “the world’s biggest decarbonisation project”.


Consumers are going to gravitate toward applications powered by the buzzy new technology, analyst Michael Wolf predicts

Chris Dixon, a partner who led the charge, says he has a ‘very long-term horizon’

Related Stories
The Tipping Backlash Has Begun
By RACHEL WOLFE 18/12/2023
Unemployment rises to its highest level in two years
By Bronwyn Allen 16/02/2024
Inside the $800,000 Experiment to Turn a Frank Lloyd Wright Into a Net-Zero Energy Home
By FRED A. BERNSTEIN 26/01/2024
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop