There is a marked global trend of investment assets moving into ‘ESG’ (environmental,
social and governance) or ‘sustainable’ investing strategies. It is reported in the
US,1 at the end of 2020, that 33% of assets under management were allocated to ESG
strategies, in other words, approaches that in some way seek to take specific account
of environmental, social or governance factors, instead of being agnostic towards
them. Indeed, ESG funds have apparently continued to attract significant inflows,
even as investment sentiments suffered during the COVID-19 pandemic and many conventional
investment funds experienced outflows.2
Yet, for all this, sustainable finance and investing suffers from an identity crisis.
Is it finance that will be profitable in the long term and hence be itself sustainable?
Is it finance that is justifiable to society? Is it finance that can help solve sustainability
challenges and, if so, which ones, and to what extent can or should it seek to do
that? Further, is sustainable investing the same as responsible investing, ESG investing
or ethical investing? We have not yet defined ‘responsible investing’ in relation
to responsibility to whom and for what. Does sustainable investing take account of
all or just some ESG factors and in what ways and for what reasons? Ethical investing
is also unclear in terms of which ethical basis, and are there forms of investing
that are therefore ‘neutral’ or ‘unethical’?
The issue is essentially one of purpose of investment. Is sustainable finance about
making money by realising opportunities presented by sustainability challenges and
preserving financial value by addressing the risks? Or is it about tackling sustainability
challenges as goals in themselves? Is it about financial value or pursuing wider outcomes
that align with core social values?3 In reality, a good deal of sustainable finance
appears to be about both, but aspirations to solve sustainability problems are often
hiding in the shadows, uncertain whether they are allowed to show their face.
At one level, investors’ and financiers’ interest in the ESG performance of their
investments clearly results from an increased recognition of the financial risk of
ESG failures, sharpened considerably in some cases by policy initiatives such as those
surrounding the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosure. We could think
of this as ‘instrumental sustainable finance’, pursued with the goal of preserving
or enhancing financial value. Drivers of financial risk include obsolete business
strategies, stranded assets,4 and reputational risk from ESG failures that could galvanise
negative stakeholder and social opinion. Although not incontrovertibly resolved,5
there is increasingly less question regarding the alignment between investment performance
and positive ESG attainment in business and economic activities.6 Yet growing attention
to sustainability in investment processes is arguably also due to the concurrent concern
regarding the non-financial impact of private investment activity, which can engage
wider social aspirations. We could think of sustainable finance motivated by ‘core
valued goals’, although, in practice, human motivation cannot be easily compartmentalised
so that altruistic motivations may often be indistinguishable from instrumental sustainable
finance.
Against this backdrop there is a range of new legal and regulatory initiatives to
support and reinforce a trend policy-makers view as healthy. In particular, EU reforms,
including the Sustainability Disclosure and Taxonomy Regulations, offer the possibility
of regulatory competition towards more rigorous regulatory underpinning for sustainable
finance. They move towards a universal baseline for sustainability risk integration
by all regulated firms, and establish standards for the design and labelling of environmentally
sustainable investment products. These are only the beginning of the EU sustainable
reform agenda. More work is envisaged, for example, on the regulation of financial
intermediaries and a social taxonomy for socially labelled investment products.7 The
EU reforms seek to move sustainable finance beyond current ESG investing practice,
which is sometimes criticised as being opaque and not susceptible to meaningful comparison
or evaluation.8 In particular, the sustainable label may help move the market for
ESG investment products from strategies of exclusion9 towards more innovative strategies
that evaluate the influence of investment activity on sustainability factors. These
EU reforms are likely to provoke policy thinking and development in many other jurisdictions,
as the markets for ESG, green and sustainable investment products continue to grow
globally and investors seek a more meaningful understanding and governance of products
such as green bonds, sustainable investment funds and development finance.
However, hitherto, much policy activity has operated within an instrumental sustainable
finance framework, even if such framework references the contribution of finance to
wider sustainability goals. We are now at a juncture of legal and regulatory developments
where policy choices need to address how finance should connect with the wider public
interest and social good in sustainability outcomes—what is the role of ‘core valued
goals’ in sustainable finance? Since the goals, and assumed goals, of an activity
have a profound impact on decisions on how to regulate sustainable finance and the
resulting behaviour on the part of investors, this moment of re-evaluation is extremely
important.
In this light, the editors of this Special Volume curated the Centre for Banking and
Financial Law Conference on Sustainable Finance, National University of Singapore,
on 16 April 2021. We are thankful to the Centre for its sponsorship and support of
the Conference. As a result, we have assembled a collection of articles offering a
broad perspective on the connection between finance and the public and social good
of sustainability outcomes, as well as discussions on the recent legal and regulatory
developments in key sustainable finance markets, i.e., the EU and the Asia-Pacific,
particularly China.
In his keynote speech at the Conference, David Rouch of Freshfields, also leading
the firm’s project for the UNEP FI on investing for sustainability impact, focused
on the need for policy-makers interested in achieving sustainability goals to draw
both on financial incentives and on wider social aspirations in seeking to move finance
further towards supporting sustainable outcomes. Since many sustainability challenges
are systemic, the two may often coincide: financial markets depend on sustainable
economies, which in turn depend on sustainable social and environmental systems. Critically,
this systemic dimension also means that responses ultimately need to galvanise whole
systems. Solutions do not lie in the hands of markets or policy-makers alone. Both
need to be engaged, but there is also a need to stimulate wider social coordination
to maximise policy impact.10 In finance specifically, wider sustainability aspirations
based on core social values need to be recognised and affirmed, and existing competition
paradigms need to be supplemented with a cooperation paradigm, since common goods
require some degree of common action. These themes of purpose and motivation are strong
in the articles in this collection, as is the balance between private action and public
intervention.
The first article in this collection is MacNeil and Esser’s contribution entitled
‘From a Financial to an Entity Model of ESG’. It provides the broad background-setting
and ideological thinking for sustainable finance, charting the development of sustainable
finance from the era of ‘corporate social responsibility’ to ‘ESG’ investing, which
focuses on the impact of material environmental, social and governance factors on
portfolio risk. The article persuades us to view the increasing legitimacy of ESG
integration into conventional portfolio risk management as being wedded to the dominant
ideology and practice of shareholder primacy and financial primacy in investment management.
This is in no small part attributed to academics’, policy-makers’ and industry’s aligned
efforts in framing the fiduciary duty for investment management in its modernised
version as integrating material ESG. The article rightly challenges that the development
of the financial sector’s internalisation of material ESG may ironically result in
a marginalisation in corporate activities of what the public or stakeholders conceive
of as wider public or social good. It advocates that reform work inevitably must connect
with regulating corporate decision-making and operations, and not merely reporting.
Policy intervention in primary corporate and wider economic activity is undoubtedly
needed. Particularly in view of the systemic nature of the challenges, it is not realistic
to expect financial markets to deliver solutions on their own. Yet, the fact that
the challenges are systemic also means that financial markets have a role, and here
some key questions are: whether finance needs to go beyond integration of sustainability
factors from a financial risk perspective to orientating towards tackling the sources
of risk themselves; whether financial incentives alone are a sufficient motivation
or whether it is possible to draw on aspirations related to broader socially valued
goals; and the extent to which policy action should involve direct regulatory intervention
and how far it should rely on market initiatives.
There has clearly been an acceleration in the use of financial market-based policy
initiatives to tackle sustainability challenges, especially concerning investors’
influence upon portfolio companies’ economic activities. There is certainly a logic
to this micro-level, frequently financial incentive-based approach. Equally, there
is always the risk that it could leave finance activity too narrowly focused on short-term
financial considerations and fail to generate real behaviour change. To what extent
can policy-making that depends on leveraging financial incentives steer markets towards
sustainable outcomes the ultimate value of which is not purely financial? Can market-based
interventions also draw on common aspirations for those sustainability outcomes to
be achieved? Clearly, the policy rhetoric underlying the soft law of stewardship has
begun to set normative expectations in terms of the roles of asset managers to achieve
financial provision and wider social good in the long term. Further, private wealth
and family offices often marry sustainable and development causes with financial interests
in their investment mandates.
In this context, a number of articles in our collection examine the role of regulatory
policy and design in steering and incentivising financial activity to achieve an integrated
good that meets private financial interests while achieving long-term sustainability
goods. The recent EU sustainable finance reforms are a highlight of this volume, and
we also compare these with policy activity in China, concerning the market for green
bonds.
In relation to the EU, Zetzsche and Anker-Sørensen provide a comprehensive overview
of the policy rationales and the legislative matrix of recent reforms. The EU’s programme
is ambitious, comprising many amendments to existing investment firm and fund regulation,
as well as new legislative initiatives. The article cautions policy-makers to observe
and take stock of the implementation of the reforms for at least 5 years, in order
to piece together crucial data relating to sustainability objectives and their effects
upon corporate profit and investment performance. The paper warns that regulators
will be regulating in the dark if more substantive initiatives are added before data
gaps are addressed. Experimental forms of regulation may be more appropriate for EU
policy-makers to observe the results of their pioneering initiatives.
Chiu’s article also addresses the EU’s reforms but argues that there is perhaps one
further area for more regulatory development, despite the already ambitious programme.
The EU’s reforms are distinguished by the quest for ‘double materiality’ in investment
fund management, i.e., the achievement of sustainable goods, for the purposes of public
and social interest, alongside the private objectives of investment performance. The
article argues that more policy governance is needed for implementing ‘double materiality’.
In particular, further development and governance are needed for metrics that would
form the backbone for evaluating double materiality.11 Evaluating the success of the
EU’s reforms crucially depends on the development and governance of the metrics that
relate to double materiality, and the extent to which they are able to show the difference
double materiality makes, compared to the financialised trend in single materiality
highlighted in MacNeil and Esser’s opening article. However, metrics governance is
inevitably intertwined with market preferences, and in general, market-based governance
for public goods still needs to be critically appraised, as argued in Tan’s reflective
paper discussed below. Both articles examining the EU’s reforms agree that there are
promises but also a continuing need for policy reflection.
Further, the success of sustainable finance reforms undoubtedly partly depends on
credible and standardised corporate transparency to inform investment management and
intermediary evaluation. Hence, Miglionico’s paper concerns how technological advances
such as algorithmic and machine learning processes for data collection and processing
may help with sustainable information transparency and corporate decision-making in
the corporate sector. The article focuses on climate risk information management for
a start and provides insight into developing standardised and granular processes for
managing corporations’ climate risk information and data.
Turning to the Chinese policy experience, Lin and Hong’s article discusses explicit
policy steers in China to build a credible market for green bonds. This involves government
leadership in facilitating issues of green bonds, as well as incentivising the demand
side of the market. Although these policy steers have resulted in massive growth in
bond issuances and investment, allowing China to grow phenomenally in its green bonds
market, the article cautions against an excessively state-led approach because of
the dangers of misallocation and other rent-seeking externalities. The article however
shows that lessons can be learnt from the policy fostering of a credible market through
law reforms and regulatory changes supporting the growth of a sophisticated investment
sector.
We observe strong policy steers of the sort described above in relation to the EU
and China, but these need to be accompanied by a growth in market-based initiatives.
Private investors must ultimately develop the capacity and confidence to evaluate
and participate in sustainable investment opportunities and tackling sustainability
challenges that have a bearing on them. Turning to the issue of investors’ incentives
and motivations, this collection compares and contrasts two groups of investors. Lin’s
paper looks at how venture capitalists, dedicated to seeking out sustainable and profitable
investment opportunities, can make a determined difference to nurturing greener and
more sustainable innovations and also make market successes of them. However, there
are clear needs in the legal and regulatory frameworks supporting venture capital
finance which need to be met in order to mobilise and develop the sustainable venture
capital market. On the other hand, the main group of private sector investors that
must make a difference are institutional investors. Micheler’s paper takes stock of
large and small portfolio institutions and their incentives and motivations, showing
that many are finely balanced between altruistic and financial considerations. The
paper argues that many institutions would likely need more proactive motivating policy
to allocate more towards sustainable causes, suggesting that government tax incentives
can play a role.
The broader issue of how policy-makers can engage private finance to contribute to
public and social good remains an ongoing experiment with mixed results so far. Despite
a belief that policy can strengthen the integration of sustainability risks and opportunities
in financial practice, and hence affect allocational decisions and influence the shape
of corporate sector activity, deliberate involvement of private finance in securing
public and social goods also carries risks. Realisation of public goods such as sustainability
needs to take account of a broad range of political, social, ecological and justice
issues, principally expressed and resolved through political and social structures.
Market activity can help to sustain these. However, there is a balance beyond which
it can also undermine them through marketisation and financialisation. Among other
things, this could weaken the key role of states and public finance, ideologically
and practically, for example in the important areas of governance and distribution.
Worse, over-reliance on private sector finance can be hazardous for states in managing
their sovereign debt exposures and volatile foreign capital flows. Tan’s paper critically
teases out the increased governance roles of private financial actors and how these
roles interact with the need for public goods and the roles of public sector actors.
It critically questions whether we are closer to or further away from achieving the
real outcomes socially desired in the UN Sustainable Development Goals.
Finally, the Special Issue rounds off where we ideologically started—which is to raise
the question whether financial market-reliant interventions in current law and regulation
can ultimately do much in achieving the public interest goals of sustainability. Sheehy’s
paper provides the ideological ‘last word’ in this collection to remind us that sustainability
goals concern issues of intergenerational justice and may need more than incentive-based
regulatory frameworks. Although law and regulation may be able to restrain excessive
corporate damage to the environment, there is still a need for corporate law reforms
to compel corporations to internalise socially and justice-oriented behaviour in their
economic activities. Sheehy’s paper, in some ways not dissimilar to MacNeil and Esser’s
opening article, posits corporate law reforms in terms of board reorganisation for
decision-making that integrates socially-facing sustainability concerns and the introduction
of ‘stakeholder’ organs in corporations. These ideological concepts are radical and
would champion a move away from existing corporate governance structures in most jurisdictions.
The discussions in this volume ultimately offer a topical examination and critique
of recent policy action focused on mobilising institutional investors in shaping broader
corporate sector activities towards avoiding sustainable harm and achieving sustainable
goods. The critique is however intended to enhance the capacity of the financial sector
while pointing out the gaps in areas of policy reform that need to be addressed. All
contributors in this volume are committed to advancing this continuing discourse as
further reforms and market-based initiatives emerge. We thank the Centre for Banking
and Financial Law, NUS, our contributors and participants at the Conference and Rainer
Kulms, Editor of the European Business Organization Law Review, for giving us the
opportunity to bring together this collection of articles as a whole.