finance sociale et investissement responsable | Page 4

Les fonds d’investissement apportent-ils réellement leur soutien aux critères lorsqu’ils exercent leur vote ? Voilà une belle à laquelle un auteur apporte malheureusement une réponse négative : Caleb Griffin, Environmental & Social Voting at Index Funds (February 14, 2020), https://ssrn.com/abstract=. On est donc encore loin des voeux affichés par les gros joueurs de l’industrie semble-t-il…

Résumé :

This Article demonstrates that, despite a considerable marketing focus on their E&S efforts, overall support for E&S proposals is low for the Big Three.

In the 2018-2019 proxy season, Vanguard’s largest funds supported 7.5% of unique shareholder E&S proposals, while State Street’s largest funds supported 22.7% of such proposals and BlackRock’s largest funds supported 7.1% of such proposals. Other funds support E&S proposals at far higher rates (e.g., Deutsche Bank at 77.9%) and far lower rates (e.g., Dimensional at 0%). Given that funds have a fiduciary duty to vote in the “best interests” of their investors, which fund got it right? The surprising answer is that no one knows—not even the funds themselves. Only by blind luck could these funds, who seek no input from their investors and make no serious attempts to discern investor preferences, be accurately reflecting investors’ interests with their voting behaviors. What are the odds that all, or even the majority, of Vanguard’s investors would benefit from just 7.5% of shareholder E&S proposals while State Street’s shareholders would benefit from 22.7% and Deutsche’s shareholders would benefit from 77.9%? What is the likelihood that BlackRock’s SRI investors would be satisfied with support for 27.7% of E&S proposals while Vanguard’s SRI investors were satisfied with support for 2.2% of such proposals? Is it probable that Guggenheim’s investors are well-served by 77.9% of SRI activities while Dimensional’s investors were well-served by exactly 0% of them?

Ultimately, this Article concludes that it is a convenient myth that index fund stewardship teams are even marginally constrained by the “best interests” standard when voting on E&S proposals, and likely other proposals as well. The truth is that these index funds, possessing the power to decide the fate of most E&S proposals, can do as they wish with that power. The status quo urgently needs change to ensure that index funds are truly acting in investors’ best interests. This Article proposes that such constraint should come in the form of greater input from index fund investors.

À la prochaine…

Intéressant article sur L’ADN de Nastasia Hadjadji sur l‘investissement d’impact (21 février 2019). Une lecture qui vous mettre à jour…

Résumé

Un vent de changement souffle sur le monde de la finance. Emmené par des jeunes structures, l’impact investing – ou finance durable – valorise les entreprises qui corrigent les dérèglements environnementaux et sociétaux. Et contribue à remettre l’argent au service de l’économie réelle.

À la prochaine…

Bel article critique envers l’investissement d’impact ou le mouvement ISR offert par Nicole Aschoff dans Jacobin (« Green Investing Is a Sham »).

Extrait :

So is tackling climate change simply about getting the incentives right? Is a more robust, standardized market in ESG metrics the key to reaching global emissions targets? Unfortunately not, for at least two reasons.

The first reason is that, just as companies are not compelled to honor shareholder resolutions, large investors and fund managers are not our allies. According to FundVotes, a project that tracks proxy voting, BlackRock, Invesco, BNY Mellon, and Vanguard have all voted against shareholder resolutions raised at ExxonMobil’s and Chevron’s annual meetings aimed at increasing corporate disclosures on climate change. The Guardian’s recent investigation confirms this finding: “BlackRock and Vanguard opposed or abstained on more than 80 percent of climate-related motions at FTSE 100 and S&P 500 fossil fuel companies between 2015 and 2019.”

The explanation for money managers’ unwillingness to use their clout to spur the transition from fossil fuels is simple: they have huge investments in dirty energy companies. BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street, the three biggest fund managers, boast “a combined $300 billion fossil fuel investment portfolio” — a portfolio that has grown nearly 35 percent since 2016.

A second reason why we can’t rely on market mechanisms to solve climate change is that, right now, a “green” label on funds and bonds has no legal basis — and companies and their political allies are working hard to keep it that way. If green funds and bonds invest in companies and projects that are not actually green, there are no legal repercussions, only reputational repercussions. In just one example of how investors are routinely misled, a $500 million Vanguard exchange-traded green fund was recently found to have investments in oil and gas companies despite promises to the contrary. And, because there are so many ESG metrics, just about any company can market itself as green — hence “green” fracking companies.

Even insiders recognize the limits of green capitalism. As Hans Hoogervorst, the chairman of the International Accounting Standards Board, put it recently: “We should not expect sustainability reporting to be very effective in inducing companies to prioritize planet over profit . . . Greenwashing is rampant.”

Self-reports, ratings systems, and the supposed green intentions of the world’s largest money managers won’t curb the voracious appetites of the world’s biggest corporations. ESG metrics and impact investing are mostly hype — an opportunity for “woke” capitalists to cash in on our desire to preserve the planet for future generations. Corporations are trying to hijack the climate justice movement. Only a bold, large-scale, people-centered movement can stop them.

À la prochaine…