We are driven by curiosity. We have a penchant for seeking out new experience, original knowledge and candid feedback. Read this section for our thoughts, our insights, and a few opinions.
The Difference Between ESG Factor Integration and SRI
Randy Bauslaugh, Partner at Canadian law firm McCarthy Tetrault.
Dr. Hendrik Garz, Leads Sustainalytics Global ESG Rating Products & Thematic Research teams.
Summary Note by Hillsdale:
Legislation, regulatory guidance and statements from agencies blur distinctions between SRI and ESG. Ontario 2016 Investment Guidance Note on ESG disclosure suggests there is a continuum between ESG and SRI, the authors contest this and state that there is not. Legally, non-economic goals or aspirations are at best distractions, and at worst depart from fiduciary duty. Therefore, SRI may not be consistent with fiduciary duty. ESG integration is related to financial performance or risk mitigation, while SRI is focused on moral or ethical imperative.
Taking ESG factors into account is not only allowable, but may be legally required. Fiduciaries should avoid statements in an investment policy that suggest that ESG factors are never taken into account. Fiduciaries are entitled to have an ethical or moral policy, but financial interests of beneficiaries should remain paramount. Unless legislated, fiduciaries cannot use pension funds to achieve social goals directly, but it can be used as a “tie-breaker”.
Typically inclusionary, focus on best in class
Typically exclusionary, avoid specific issues e.g. “sin stocks”
Focus on economic goals and financial materiality
Typically focus on moral or ethical goals
Consistent with fiduciary duty to consider material risks
May not be consistent with fiduciary duties