Esg investing

Carbon that has not yet been emitted should not be used to predict stock returns. While this sounds obvious, prior research papers have done exactly that. This critical observation forms the basis for the Robeco Institutional Asset Management research team’s re-examination of the relationship between climate risk and asset pricing. Investors and academics alike have sought to understand how environmental factors influence stock returns, often assuming that higher emitters command a risk premium. However, the timing of data availability is crucial in quantitative strategy formation, and misalignments here can lead to spurious conclusions about the pricing of carbon emissions.

The growing urgency of climate change has increased scrutiny of companies’ ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) practices. Investors are now more inclined to support firms that demonstrate strong ESG commitments, often willing to pay a green premium for sustainable investments. However, is the spread in performance between the ‘Sin’ and ‘Saint’ stocks driven by the ESG factor or some other omitted variable? The recent study by Zhan Shi and Shaojun Zhang suggests that the hidden force that may be in play is the price of the oil.

Over the last decade, investing responsibly and deploying capital for “ethically” correct and sustainable growth has been quite a theme. We dedicated a few blogs to this theme and have a separate ESG category for trading strategies in our database. It is often easy to commit financial resources to noble ideas during liquidity abundance. However, how do these methodologies fare during crisis times, such as when the GFC (Global Financial Crisis) or COVID-19 hit? That’s the question that a new paper by Henk Berkman and Mihir Tirodkar tries to answer.

What are our expectations from the ESG theme on the portfolio management level? The question is whether ESG investing also offers some kind of “alternative alpha”, or outperformance against the traditional benchmarks. There are managers and academics who are enthusiastic and hope for the outperformance of the good ESG stocks. However, the academic research community is really split. Some academic papers show positive alpha for “Saints” (good ESG stocks); others show significantly positive alpha for “Sinners” (bad ESG stocks). So, how it’s in reality? Is it “Good to be Bad”? Or the other way around?

Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing is rapidly growing in popularity. As more investors grow interested in the ESG investing, the funds theoretically have more reason to highlight their engagement with the ESG-related activities. In the research paper by Andrikogiannopoulou et al. (2022), authors first use textual analysis to assess how and how much the funds talk about ESG-related topics in their prospectuses, and then they compare this measure with the funds’ actual ESG engagement. The discrepancy between the words in their prospectus (high rate of mentioning ESG investing-related topics) and the fund’s acts (not being as green as illustrated in the prospectus) allows the authors to identify the greenwashing funds and take a closer look at their performance.

Socially responsible investing, also known as ESG investing, is a recent trend in the world of portfolio management. More and more investors have started to look into the Environmental, Social, and Governance scores of the companies they invest in. However, one major problem with ESG scoring is that there is not one universal scoring system. Many companies sell ESG data, but the scores are not comparable, and additionally, the ESG data providers are not very transparent about how they create the ratings. These problems with ESG data mean we need to have a method to grade and merge the information from multiple providers.