Highly polluting companies need trillions of dollars of funding to reduce their carbon emissions. Transition bonds are mooted as one solution, but investors are far from convinced.
European proposals on ESG fund distribution are sparking worries about mis-selling, market fragmentation and, as a result, potentially reduced flows into such products.
UN Sustainable Development Goal 15 figures low on investors’ agenda, while their exposure to at-risk forest companies remains high.
The number of ESG ETF launches shows no signs of abating, and while many are now aligning with the UN SDGs, their diversity and quality are questionable.
A lack of technical guidance on Europe’s SFDR legislation has left asset managers to fill in the gaps, leading to confusion and serious risks of both greenwashing and market fragmentation.
The proliferation of ESG indices and the funds launched off the back of them is great business, but the ESG ratings underpinning them are under intense scrutiny.
Analysis by Capital Monitor has discovered a small handful of influential investors with significant stakes in companies that dominate the ocean economy. Sadly, improving life below water is not high on many investment agendas.
Companies need to take their heads out of the sand and deal directly with shareholders' concerns over ESG – unless they don't want to tap cheaper capital, of course.
With an estimated 25 million people in forced labour, hundreds of companies should be identifying human rights abuses every year, yet very few do. Shamefully, investors don't apply enough pressure, while existing regulations lack bite.
The European Commission wants to compel around 50,000 companies to report across a range of ESG factors. Investors, banks and NGOs are broadly aligned, but reservations exist.