Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 197

Can socially responsible investing and good returns coexist?

“Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.” Mark Twain

In the past few years, there has been a significant increase in the interest in environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing. According to a paper released recently, more than $8 trillion of the $40 trillion of money managed in the USA is now under some form of Sustainable and Responsible Investing (SRI) or ESG, up 33% since 2014 and up fivefold from $1.4 trillion in 2012 for money run by fund managers.

Australian fund managers caught unready for this change

If we look at the Mercer survey data for January 2017, the Global Equities strategy section contains 127 global funds sold in Australia. Of this, only five are classed as SRI funds. It is somewhat better for Australian equities with 157 funds in the survey, of which 13 are SRI. If we were to use the ratio of assets in the USA, the number of SRI funds should be 27 and 34 respectively.

One reason could be the view among many people, particularly fund managers, that ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it, too’, that SRI means lower returns for investors.

This misconception of accepting lower returns for being ethical goes against another tenet of conventional investing wisdom: buy good businesses. In his letters to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, Warren Buffett often discusses the importance of ethics and the quality of the character of the people running the businesses he owns.

Implicitly he is saying that businesses which have an ethos and focus on ‘doing the right thing’ by staff and customers should generate higher returns. Admittedly, he is discussing the character of the people rather than the nature of the business, and some people would find owning Coca-Cola shares unethical. It’s this differentiation between good people and bad unethical businesses that opens an interesting next line of inquiry.

What do the statistics say?

UBS recently published an excellent summary of academic literature which concluded that SRI did not negatively affect investor returns.

Verheyden, Eccles & Feiner (2016) wanted to look at whether a portfolio manager would be at a disadvantage in terms of performance, risk, and diversification if he/she were to start from a screen based on ESG criteria. The empirical evidence shows that all ESG-screened portfolios have performed similarly to their respective underlying benchmarks, if not slightly outperforming them. Put differently, the findings of the paper show that, at the very least, there is no performance penalty from screening out low ESG-scoring firms in each industry.

This is consistent with our own experience as portfolio managers at Hunter Hall, where we outperformed against an all-inclusive benchmark, despite having a restricted ownership list.

Nagy, Kassam & Lee (2016) wanted to see not only if highly-rated ESG companies outperform, but if businesses are rewarded for improving, going from okay to good? The answer was unequivocally yes. Both outperformed, but the improvers outperformed at double the rate.

The most interesting article by Statman and Glushkov (2016) created what they called 'Top Minus Bottom' (TMB) where stocks were ranked on their ESG criteria and then modelled how being long the ‘better-ranked’ versus the ‘worse-ranked’ performed. This concept is similar to the studies above and could be called the ‘good screen’.

The innovation was to look at ‘Accepted Minus Shunned’ (AMS) separately. Here the authors looked at the returns from stocks commonly accepted in SRI funds versus those that are typically avoided. Shunned companies are those with operations in the tobacco, alcohol, gambling, military, firearms and nuclear industries. Call this the “negative screen”.

Like the earlier studies, it was found TMB outperformed the broader market but interestingly the AMS (the bad screen) stocks didn’t outperform, that is, the excluded stocks did better than the broader market. But AMS under-performed by less than the TMB screen outperformed. That is, it was a net positive for investors. I think it is this AMS effect that fund managers have focused on in their view that SRI/ESG does not work.

What does this mean for fund managers?

Investors globally are demanding more focus from their fund managers on ESG issues. The implications of these studies are that ESG does not detract from returns and investors are therefore not irrational to ask for more focus on ESG and SRI issues by their money managers.

But it also says running a positive screen in combination with running a negative screen is a better way to generate returns for investors while also satisfying investor’s ethical investment needs.


Chad Slater, CFA, is Joint CIO of Morphic Asset Management. This article is general information that does not consider the circumstances of any individual.


Top 10 ESG issues for 2019

ESG by new means, to new ends

The impact of the trend to ethical investing


Most viewed in recent weeks

Are you caught in the ‘retirement trap’?

Our retirement savings system is supposed to encourage financial independence but there is a ‘Retirement Trap’ due to the reduction of age pension entitlements as assets and income rise.

The power of letting winners run

Handling extreme winners is a complex task. Conventional wisdom such as “you never go broke taking a profit” often leaves a lot of money on the table as strong growth stocks continue to run.

Tony Togher on why cash isn’t just cash

An active manager of cash and fixed interest funds can achieve higher returns than the cash rate through a selection of other securities while managing both liquidity and income for clients.

NAB hybrid: one says buy, one says sell, you decide

Differences of opinion make a market, and hybrid specialists disagree on the likelihood that NAB will call one of its hybrids early. It makes a major difference to the expected return on NABHA.

Watch your SMSF’s annual return this year

The best way to preserve your SMSF’s favoured status is to make sure the fund’s annual return reaches the ATO on time. There are new rules this year that every SMSF trustee should know.

Worshipping at the altar of alternative assets

Investors worried about an overvalued sharemarket and low interest rates on term deposits and bonds are focusing on alternatives. What are they and how are they used by leading asset allocators?

Latest Updates


Kunal Kapoor on different paths to investor success

The Morningstar CEO on democratising investing, why saving in your youth is crucial, and why most investors care more about paying off their debts than comparing their results against benchmarks.

Investment strategies

Do sin stocks really give your portfolio the edge?

Should sin stocks, those companies who engage in activities that are considered unethical or immoral, be excluded from a portfolio, or would this compromise potential performance?


What is the likely effect of COVID-19 on the Australian economy?

Our close links to China mean the impact of the virus could tip the local economy into recession and certain sectors such as resources, education and travel will be harder hit than others.


Poor pricing of life insurance products and the impact on Australians

The use of discounted pricing by insurers to attract new business is unsustainable and leaves existing policyholders on higher premiums for what is essentially the same product.


Spotting signs of trouble in a retirement portfolio

Do you risk paying a lot of tax in accumulation phase? Or, if you're in retirement phase, do you face the risk of outliving your asset pool? Two key things to consider in the low-rate world of today.