09 Sep 2019
The investment landscape is changing as savers and governments place greater scrutiny on environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors. In this piece we highlight the driving forces and discuss the ways in which investors can include ESG factors in their investment decisions.
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors are non-traditional metrics that can affect a company’s performance.
Governments have committed to carbon emissions targets. The Paris Agreement was established in 2016 within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change by 196 state parties to combat climate change and prevent global temperatures from rising by more than 1.5 degrees by 2030. Exhibit 1 shows that many governments are way off this target. The grey bar shows total estimated emissions based on current policy by country/region and the green bar shows the target emissions based on the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which form part of the Paris Agreement. As a point of reference, the red dot shows carbon emitted by the same country/region in 2017 (latest full year data available). Government Policy is trying to shift quickly to get back on track, although this is not being seen within all countries. Initiatives include spending on climate-friendly projects, influencing behaviour through taxes and regulation.
Source: Climate Action Global Tracker Proxy Preview, J.P. Morgan Asset Management. Data as of 29 August 2019.
Many new regulations focus specifically on the role capital markets should play in delivering a solution. In March 2019, the EU Parliament and Council introduced new regulation to ensure consistency, disclosure and transparency by financial market participants and financial advisors across EU member states. The regulation sets out how ESG risk and opportunities must be integrated in their processes, as part of their duty to act in the best interest of clients.
Further detail was provided in June 2019, when the European Commission’s Technical Expert Group (TEG) released its final recommendations for a “taxonomy” of environmentally sustainable activities. The main report set out technical screening criteria for 67 economic activities that can make a substantial contribution to climate change and mitigation. Asset Managers that market products as environmentally “sustainable” will need to explain and disclose information on how they relate to the 67 activities.
The current US administration has pulled out of the Paris Agreement, but it may be wrong to assume that climate change is not a domestic priority. Exhibit 2 shows that the number of US shareholder resolutions with climate change as a key theme has been steadily increasing. Given that most climate experts agree that the next ten to twenty years will be crucial in limiting climate change we expect to see government policy ramp up in the near term as the threats to the environment increase.
Source: Climate Action Global Tracker Proxy Preview, J.P. Morgan Asset Management. Data as of 29 August 2019.
In addition to climate change, social issues are affecting government policy. One of the corollaries of the slow growth in this expansion has been lacklustre real wage growth, particularly in low- and middle-income households. We suspect that social policies, such as living wages and on-the-job training, will become an increasingly important component of government policy in many developed world countries.
As such, understanding how ESG-related government policy will affect corporate earnings is increasingly crucial to appropriately valuing a company’s stock.
ESG factors are influencing consumer and investor behavior. The recent aversion to single-use plastics is one example of how increasing awareness can have a notable impact on consumer behavior. In addition, savers are keen to see their savings put to work in a way that accords with their social values. In a recent survey, 87% of millennial respondents indicated the importance of ESG in investment decisions.
Source: J.P. Morgan Asset Management. Data as of 29 August 2019.
Exhibit 3 from our upcoming Q4 Guide to the Markets shows the different ways in which ESG factors can be considered, or screened, when investors are making decisions. These are J.P. Morgan Asset Management classifications that seek to conform to global industry standards and align as much as possible with potential regulations.
ESG integration is the broadest category and is defined as “the explicit and systematic consideration of ESG issues in investment analysis and investment decisions”. Investors consider ESG factors when making their investment decisions in the same way they would consider other traditional variables, such as product demand, that might affect a company’s outlook. It is at the investor’s discretion to determine the materiality of these ESG factors and whether the price of the asset is reflecting this additional risk.
Dedicated ESG strategies are investment processes that are more rules-based and may invest in themes specifically related to sustainability.
Exhibit 4, from our upcoming Q4 Guide to the Markets, considers the assets under management (AUM) of the top 400 asset managers. We estimate that roughly USD 30.7 trillion (47% of total AUM) includes some form of ESG integration or certain types of exclusion-based screening. However, less than USD 10 trillion (12% of total AUM) is in dedicated investment strategies.
Source: GSIA- Global Sustainable Investment Alliance (GSIA), IPE, J.P. Morgan Asset Management. AUM that is considered being managed sustainably according to the GSIA definition. Dedicated sustainable strategies include Positive Tilting, Best in Class, Norms-based screening, Sustainability Themed Investing and Impact Investing. Data as of 29 August 2019.
Exhibit 5 showcases the growth by region over the past two years. While traditionally Europe has been at the forefront of ESG inclusion in the investment process, the growth in Japan and the US is noteworthy.
Source: GSIA- Global Sustainable Investment Alliance, IPE, J.P. Morgan Asset Management. Data as of 29 August 2019.
With investors increasingly scrutinising companies according to ESG criteria, managements are becoming more adept at providing data on the performance of their firm. 85% of companies in the S&P 500 now report on ESG issues, up from just 20% in 2011.
The influence and importance of ESG rating agencies has also increased. MSCI and Sustainalytics are the two most prominent players. They both analyse the ESG-related business practices of thousands of companies globally, and provide research, materiality frameworks, a benchmark in which to compare industries and companies, and an overall score.
It is worth noting that individual agencies’ ESG ratings can significantly vary (the correlation among their scores is just 0.53). This is due to a combination of factors including methodology, quantity and quality of the underlying data, subjective interpretation of a company’s ESG disclosures and lack of standardization. As a result, the rating agency scores can end up biased toward countries, industries or companies that have better disclosure.
Some asset management firms build their own proprietary tools to produce in-house scoring systems that can account for these limitations.
Environmental, social and governance factors are becoming a higher a priority for governments and savers alike. Investors have a range of strategies they can deploy, ranging from ESG-integrated, whereby ESG factors are considered alongside traditional metrics in the investment process, to impact investing, in which a specific sustainable goal is at the heart of the investment process. At a minimum, understanding how preferences and policies are changing is necessary to mitigate risk. Increasingly, savers are seeking more than financial returns—they want to be a force for change.
Important information
This document is a general communication being provided for informational purposes only. It is educational in nature and not designed to be taken as advice or a recommendation for any specific investment product, strategy, plan feature or other purpose in any jurisdiction, nor is it a commitment from J.P. Morgan Asset Management or any of its subsidiaries to participate in any of the transactions mentioned herein. Any examples used are generic, hypothetical and for illustration purposes only. This material does not contain sufficient information to support an investment decision and it should not be relied upon by you in evaluating the merits of investing in any securities or products. In addition, users should make an independent assessment of the legal, regulatory, tax, credit, and accounting implications and determine, together with their own professional advisers, if any investment mentioned herein is believed to be suitable to their personal goals. Investors should ensure that they obtain all available relevant information before making any investment. Any forecasts, figures, opinions or investment techniques and strategies set out are for information purposes only, based on certain assumptions and current market conditions and are subject to change without prior notice. All information presented herein is considered to be accurate at the time of production, but no warranty of accuracy is given and no liability in respect of any error or omission is accepted. It should be noted that investment involves risks, the value of investments and the income from them may fluctuate in accordance with market conditions and taxation agreements and investors may not get back the full amount invested. Both past performance and yields is not a reliable indicator of current and future results.
J.P. Morgan Asset Management is the brand for the asset management business of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its affiliates worldwide. This communication is issued in the United Kingdom by JPMorgan Asset Management (UK) Limited, which is authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, Registered in England No. 01161446. Registered address: 25 Bank Street, Canary Wharf, London E14 5JP.