Investing with ‘green’ ratings? It’s a grey area

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York, U.S., May 3, 2017. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

By Ross Kerber and Michael Flaherty | BOSTON/NEW YORK

Investors betting trillions on ethically-appealing stocks may not be getting all they expect.

Buying into companies based on environmental, social and governance factors, has become a hot trend on Wall Street, spawning a new industry that sells investors company ratings based on those factors and funds dedicated to rated companies. However, some investors and funds may rely too much on the scores of one rating firm, said Dan Hanson, a portfolio manager at Jarislowsky Fraser Global Investment Management.

“The scores are in some cases being used in a way they are not really designed for,” Hanson said. “It’s problematic to bolt them on to an investment process.”

There are no set criteria for who is bad and who is good and so-called ESG ratings vary widely, meaning investors may be less protected than they think, for example, from a scandal over labour practices or board pay.

“We don’t have a common vernacular,” said Asha Mehta, director of responsible investing at Acadian Asset Management in Boston.

Sustainability analysis firm CSRHub compared such ratings given to companies in the S&P Global 1200 index by two leading firms in the field – a division of MSCI Inc, and Toronto-based Sustainalytics – and found they had a correlation coefficient of 0.32, a relatively weak level.

Credit ratings, in contrast, are closely aligned, with the comparable figure for Moody’s and S&P ratings of around 0.9, according to research by Northern Illinois University finance professor Lei Zhou.

The difference is that credit ratings rely on financial disclosures while the sustainability ratings may reflect different weightings given to factors such as workers’ rights, emissions, or responses to events such as an oil spill or product failure.

Electric car maker Tesla, for example, has received a top AAA score from MSCI, but a middling grade from Sustainalytics, below that of traditional automakers Ford Motor Co and General Motors , partly because Tesla does not release carbon emissions data for its manufacturing plants.

Tesla declined to comment.

In interviews, a dozen professional investors and company executives told Reuters they were frustrated by the lack of common standards, even as many praised the work of the ratings firms individually.

COMMON LANGUAGE

One remedy, they say, would be to adopt a common language and reporting requirements. Starting next year, the European Union will require companies to report on their efforts in such areas as the environment and social responsibility. In the United States, a small group of companies, such as JetBlue Airways Corp, has embraced voluntary disclosures suggested by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, an independent organization.

As more and more investors recognise the long-term financial benefits of good corporate governance and sustainable policies, the need for uniform criteria becomes more pressing.

The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment estimates that more than $8 trillion was invested by U.S. fund managers who incorporated at least some of such criteria in their strategy, up from $1.4 trillion in 2012.

CSRHub counts 17 firms and organizations that track in some form corporate adherence to environmental, social and governance standards, including Thomson Reuters, the parent company of Reuters. At their best, rating firms can help investors avoid losses. For instance, both MSCI and Sustainalytics raised governance concerns about Volkswagen AG (VOWG_p.DE) months before the German automaker admitted to cheating on U.S. diesel emissions tests in September 2015.

[Source”timesofindia”]