WHEB Commentary

ESG ratings – a quick fix or a bodged job?


The dramatic growth in ESG and sustainable investing over the past few years is now well documented. What was once a sleepy backwater of the financial industry is now very much in the limelight.

Why this has changed so dramatically is not entirely clear. From our perspective as a dedicated sustainability-focused investment boutique, we think the primary driver has been the end client. Just as consumers switched to fairly-traded chocolate and free-range eggs in the 1990s and 2000s, so investors now demand portfolios that help drive positive change in the world around them, or at the very least avoid making things worse.[i]

Asset managers – not backward in coming forward

Asset managers have been quick to respond to this shift in demand. Since the first quarter of 2021, Morningstar has added 3,450 sustainability funds to its database.[ii] Net inflows into ESG funds have been running at an annualized rate of c.24% over the past three years. [iii] This compares with just over 5% for the broader market.  Our own asset growth at WHEB has also been remarkable. The strategy had less than £400m invested in it in mid-March 2020. Just two years later it has over three times this amount at £1.4bn.

It is perhaps inevitable that this spectacular market growth will stimulate product development that includes funds that only consider sustainability issues in a perfunctory way.  ESG ratings, often generated through algorithms or grounded on overly simplistic assumptions, have flooded the market, and provide a cheap and quick way to add ‘ESG’ to a fund label.

Flawed and unquestioning use of ESG ratings

That these ratings are often deeply flawed is now widely acknowledged.[iv] Our own experience bears this out as well. In recent months one rating agency estimated that 0% of the revenues of one of our portfolio companies would be considered eligible for the EU Taxonomy. This is because the company sits in a ‘power supply and electronics’ sub-sector. The company though is called Solaredge for a reason; it gets effectively 100% of its revenues selling electronic components that make solar modules more efficient.

We also had to respond recently to a client who had been alerted by an ESG data provider to a major reputational risk facing another company that we own in the strategy. The company was reported to have had a spill of hydraulic fluid from a truck at a construction site in Connecticut. While the spill was of course wholly regrettable, it was small, caused no damage to the environment and had no ill-effects or even presented any risk to workers. The company employs 28,000 people in 350 offices across 40 countries and generated nearly €4bn in revenues last year.  It is absurd that this issue was flagged as a potential reputational issue for the company.

Fund managers have also been publicly harangued for unthinkingly adopting voting positions set out by their proxy agencies. In a recent opinion piece in the Financial Times, Michael Moritz, a partner at Sequoia Capital, labelled investors that fail to question proxy agency guidance as ‘lazy’. ‘It’s just easier to outsource these decisions to a third party’, he said.[v]

Caveat emptor

We have a lot of sympathy with this perspective, not just when it comes to corporate governance, but on ratings that address the full spectrum of sustainability issues. The agenda is too complex and nuanced to be captured by a simplistic rating. It requires experience alongside deep research and scrutiny. The problem is this takes time and is expensive.

Asset managers that view sustainability merely as a marketing exercise, want a quick and cheap solution to ‘tick the ESG box’. But not all asset managers see sustainability this way. For us, sustainability is creating deep structural changes in the global economy that are already driving asset prices. Understanding these changes and factoring them into our assessment process is at the core of what we do. ESG ratings and the investment strategies that rely on them may turn out to be less of a quick fix, and more a bodged job.

 

[i] According to the 2Degrees Investing Initiative, 46% of retail investors who are interested in investing sustainably do so because they want to have a positive impact on the world. A further 19% want to avoid negative impacts with the remainder investing this way because they think it will enhance their returns (https://2degrees-investing.org/resource/retail-clients-sustainable-investment/).

[ii] ‘Sustainable investing: Quarterly Tracker’, Morgan Stanley, 19 January 2022

[iii] Ibid

[iv] For example the European Banking Federation complained in a letter to the European securities regulator ESMA that ratings agencies were understaffed to deal with the complexity of the analytical tasks that they undertake resulting in ‘factually incorrect analyses and misleading/incorrect conclusions’. (https://www.ebf.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/EBF-Response-ESMA-Call-For-Evidence-on-Market-Characteristics-for-ESG-Rating-Providers-in-the-EU_11.03.2022.pdf)

[v] ‘Tim Cook pay vote shows ISS should not be judge and jury’, Financial Times, 9th March 20222

Recent posts

  • A deep dive into HelloFresh
  • War and Power
  • Helping the aged – investing in elderly care
  • ESG ratings – a quick fix or a bodged job?
  • Reflections, Soul Searching and Awkward Conversations
  • How much is enough? WHEB’s approach to capacity
  • January storms: heavy rotation in weak markets at the start of 2022
  • COP26: ‘More than expected, less than hoped’
  • Drug pricing and impact investing
  • WHEB’s approach to biodiversity
  • Archive

  • May 2022 (1)
  • April 2022 (3)
  • March 2022 (1)
  • February 2022 (2)
  • January 2022 (3)
  • December 2021 (1)
  • November 2021 (1)
  • October 2021 (3)
  • September 2021 (1)
  • August 2021 (2)
  • July 2021 (3)
  • June 2021 (1)
  • May 2021 (1)
  • April 2021 (3)
  • March 2021 (1)
  • February 2021 (1)
  • January 2021 (3)
  • December 2020 (1)
  • November 2020 (2)
  • October 2020 (3)
  • September 2020 (1)
  • August 2020 (2)
  • July 2020 (3)
  • June 2020 (2)
  • May 2020 (1)
  • April 2020 (3)
  • March 2020 (1)
  • February 2020 (2)
  • January 2020 (1)
  • December 2019 (1)
  • November 2019 (2)
  • October 2019 (3)
  • September 2019 (1)
  • August 2019 (2)
  • July 2019 (3)
  • June 2019 (2)
  • May 2019 (3)
  • April 2019 (1)
  • March 2019 (1)
  • February 2019 (2)
  • January 2019 (3)
  • December 2018 (1)
  • November 2018 (2)
  • October 2018 (4)
  • September 2018 (2)
  • August 2018 (4)
  • July 2018 (1)
  • June 2018 (1)
  • May 2018 (1)
  • April 2018 (2)
  • March 2018 (2)
  • February 2018 (1)
  • January 2018 (1)
  • December 2017 (3)
  • November 2017 (1)
  • July 2017 (3)
  • June 2017 (1)
  • May 2017 (1)
  • April 2017 (1)
  • February 2017 (2)
  • November 2016 (1)
  • August 2016 (1)
  • July 2016 (1)
  • June 2016 (1)
  • May 2016 (1)
  • April 2016 (2)
  • February 2016 (1)
  • December 2015 (1)
  • November 2015 (3)
  • October 2015 (1)
  • September 2015 (1)
  • July 2015 (2)
  • April 2015 (2)
  • February 2015 (2)
  • December 2014 (2)
  • November 2014 (3)
  • October 2014 (4)
  • August 2014 (1)
  • July 2014 (3)
  • June 2014 (1)
  • April 2014 (2)
  • March 2014 (2)
  • February 2014 (3)
  • January 2014 (4)
  • December 2013 (4)
  • October 2013 (5)
  • September 2013 (3)
  • July 2013 (4)
  • June 2013 (2)
  • May 2013 (4)
  • April 2013 (2)
  • March 2013 (4)
  • February 2013 (6)
  • January 2013 (2)
  • December 2012 (3)
  • November 2012 (1)
  • October 2012 (4)
  • September 2012 (2)
  • August 2012 (1)
  • July 2012 (3)
  • June 2012 (3)
  • May 2012 (6)
  • April 2012 (4)
  • March 2012 (5)