Jordan Waldrep, CIO af TrueMark Investments i Dallas, har for nyligt foretaget en analyse af de største miljø-, sociale-, og forvaltningsfonde. Bloomberg giver i en ny artikel udtryk for, at ESG-fokuserede børshandlede fonde ikke lever op til deres ansvar om at reducere deres kollektive klimaaftryk.
Bloomberg skriver, at analysen efterlader Waldrep med en ambivalent følelse:
”What he found was simultaneously encouraging and disconcerting. The greenhouse-gas intensity of the iShares fund, known by its ticker symbol ESGU, declined by about 25% over the past year, Waldrep said. While not bad, the drop could have been significantly more given that the GHG intensity of the S&P 500 would plummet 36% by replacing 55 of the index’s worst corporate emitters, he said.”
“I don’t think it’s ridiculous to say that should be the bare minimum expectation of a diversified ESG fund,” siger Waldrep.
Virkeligheden er, at de mest populære ESG ETF’er ejer aktier i virksomheder med et CO2-fodaftryk, der ikke er meget lavere end virksomheder, der udgør S&P 500, sagde Waldrep.
Men hvad enten det er strategi, inerti eller en lys skygge af greenwashing, er de dage, hvor fonde kan komme afsted med at fremvise resultater, der kun opfylder minimumskravene, ovre
Bloomberg skriver også, at:
The greenhouse-gas intensity of ESGU’s portfolio holdings measured at 109 metric tons of emissions per $1 million of revenue as recently as January, down from 125 metric tons last March, he said. In addition, the average GHG emissions of companies that were eliminated from the fund such as Occidental Petroleum Corp. and Delta Air Lines Inc. were 171 metric tons, while the average for holdings that were added, including Mondelez International Inc. and Nike Inc., was 97 metric tons.
The interest in ESG investing has exploded in recent years. Researchers at Morningstar Inc. said $347 billion flowed into ESG funds globally in 2020 and more than 700 new funds were created.
The vast number of options means investors are going to be more discerning about where they put their money, Waldrep said. “For many, an ESG label may be enough, but investors now have many viable choices and they will have to decide what they want,” he said.
Læs hele artiklen her: