Investors like their money to make money. But increasingly, according to a new report from the Harvard Business Review, they expect it to do good, too. In 2010, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investments made up approximately $3 trillion of all professionally managed assets. As of the beginning of last year, that number had quadrupled to $12 trillion (pdf)—$1 in every four invested in the US.
Investors are speaking with their wallets, the report explains, and have an active interest in the social and environmental decisions their money funds on both a governmental and corporate level. “They can be quick to punish companies for child labor practices, human rights abuses, negative environmental impact, poor governance, and a lack of gender equality.” In response to growing investor awareness about climate change, rating companies such as Moody’s increasingly consider climate risk as a negative factor when assessing credit ratings.
That’s the good news. The less good news is that the criteria for ESG investment can be vague—or so easy to meet as to be almost meaningless. It includes exclusionary screening, for instance, where funds divest from harmful industries such as weapon markers or the so-called “sin industries” (pdf)—gambling, pornography, tobacco and alcohol. Harm may be mitigated by excluding investment in these industries, but there isn’t necessarily the same commitment to actually doing good. A fund’s holdings may count as ESG investments, but still contain shares of oil companies, for example, because they weren’t specifically excluded.
