In the last stage, the mainstream strategies of ESG include negative elimination, positive screening and integration. Integration strategy is the most popular investment strategy.
The integration strategy is to incorporate ESG factors into the traditional financial analysis model of investment decision. As a supplement to the financial analysis model, ESG factor can be used as a risk factor in investment decision.
According to the survey of 20021in JPMorgan Chase, 84% of investors considered ESG factors in their investment decisions, but only half of them established a systematic investment framework. More than 90% investors prefer ESG integration strategy, followed by shareholder behavior and negative elimination.
Combined with the investment cases related to ESG management in China in recent years. The most recent case is. 65438+On February 22nd, the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund, the second largest sovereign wealth fund in the world, decided to exclude Yunnan Baiyao Group Co., Ltd. from the global fund of the government pension fund because of the unacceptable risk of serious environmental damage.
In addition, the Ali zipper door incident, which has made a lot of noise this year, is frequent. Someone analyzed Ali's three vulnerabilities from Ali's ESG report. First, Ali concentrated a large part of the report on public welfare, with 63 pages, and public welfare content accounted for 44 pages, accounting for about 70%; The content of the Environment Department is 6 pages, the content of employees is 3 pages, and the content of customers is less than 1 page, and there is no mention of supply chain management.
This imbalance of content not only reflects Ali's one-sided understanding of ESG connotation, but also reflects the serious shortage of ESG management in Ali. Some people directly linked Ali's "sexual assault" with Ali's serious mistakes in employee behavior and morality.
This is clearly stated in MSCI's rating of Ali. MSCI believes that Ali's performance in corporate governance and business ethics is seriously behind the industry average.
It can be seen that ESG investment strategy not only pays attention to the company's financial information, but also pays attention to the company's management and environment-related content.
The global ESG investment scale continues to grow rapidly, with the CARG reaching 65,438+03% from 2065,438+02 to 2020, which is significantly higher than the growth scale of overall asset management. According to JPMorgan Chase's research, the investment strategy of ESG is still dominated by institutional investors, but the proportion of individual investors in ESG investment strategy is gradually increasing. Especially after the global climate issue has been widely concerned, individual investors have gradually introduced ESG investment strategy.
ESG products mainly allocate stocks and bonds, of which stocks account for more than 1.5% and bonds account for more than 30%.
(d) Whether the environmental, social and corporate governance investment strategy is effective.
The ESG investment strategy has been fully verified in overseas markets, which shows that the return rate and stability of ESG investment strategy overseas are better than the benchmark index.
According to the research of CITIC Securities, the cumulative excess returns of MSCI American ESG FOCUS, MSCI American SELECT and MSCI American ESG LEADERS released by MSCI are 2.3%, 1 1 and 202 1 respectively.
Huatai Securities found that since 2000, FTSE Russell Global Social Responsibility Benchmark Index and FTSE Russell European Social Responsibility Benchmark Index have performed better than their parent indexes. Specifically, the annualized rate of return of FTSE 4 Good Index is 4.6%, and the benchmark annualized rate of return is 4.1%; The annualized rate of return of FTSE European Social Responsibility Index is 2.3%, and the benchmark index is 0.8%.
In the domestic market, the implementation of ESG strategy is not long, and the domestic ESG rating system is not perfect, which leads to great differences in the performance of ESG strategy in China.
According to the research of CITIC Securities: August 3 1, August 3 1, August 3/20654381,and August 3/202 1, except that Harvest ESG index has an excess return of 13.4% relative to Shanghai and Shenzhen 300, the accumulated excess returns of Shanghai and Shenzhen 300ESG are-/kloc-respectively.
It is believed that the main reason is that the scale of domestic ESG funds is small, and the scale of 26 products with clear ESG investment strategies is only 29.7 billion, which makes it difficult to improve the effectiveness of ESG at the level of capital flow. ESG evaluation research is not deep enough.
My analysis is not only small in scale, but also because domestic ESG theme funds may not really integrate ESG factors, and more is the concept of "pan-ESG". In addition, the research on ESG in China is not deep enough, and there is no unified information disclosure and evaluation standard. This can be found in ESG's rating of WIND and the trend of individual stocks.
Generally speaking, the performance of CSI 300 is better than that of Wonder A and CSI 500, which can be logically analyzed. Most of the Shanghai and Shenzhen 300 are large companies, and many state-owned enterprises are much better than small companies in management, society and environmental protection.
But in terms of distribution, the rating system is not rigorous and scientific enough. The following is the interception of some rating results and trend information.
(E) the practices of world-leading enterprises
We talk about "double carbon" at home and "responsible investment and ESG investment" internationally, which has become an important investment strategy for international mainstream PE institutions. Compared with head enterprises, we found the following three main trends:
First, actively join the United Nations PRI (Principles of Responsible Investment) and abide by the framework standards such as TCFD (Climate-related Financial Disclosure Task Force). KKR, BlackRock, Blackstone and other head enterprises are signatories to the United Nations PRI and abide by relevant investment principles. By September 30th, 4,375 institutions had signed up to join the UN PRI, and the total assets managed by the contracting institutions exceeded 1.20 trillion USD.
More than 60 domestic institutions, including Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and Ping An of China, have become signatories to the UN PRI. In addition, nearly 2,800 institutions around the world have signed up to support TCFD, covering 89 countries and regions, with a total market value of more than 25 1 1,000 US dollars. More than 20 domestic financial institutions including Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Agricultural Bank of China, Bank of China, Huaxia Bank, southern fund and E Fund have signed up to support TCFD.
The third is to actively promote the carbon neutrality of its own carbon neutrality combination. At present, many international financial institutions and securities institutions take the lead in achieving carbon neutrality at the operational level. Among them, Goldman Sachs achieved operational carbon neutrality in 20 15, and plans to achieve portfolio carbon neutrality by 2030; JPMorgan Chase, UBS and Morgan Stanley achieved operational carbon neutrality in 2020, 20021year and 2022 respectively, and announced that they would achieve carbon neutrality at the investor level in 2050. 128 institutions have signed up to join the zero net worth manager initiative. Net Zero Banking Alliance was established on 202 1 and 2 1, attracting 43 large banking institutions around the world.