The allure of environmental, social and governance (ESG) goals has hypnotized companies into offering #ESG funds that punctuate investments to prioritize social goals. Companies that consider environmental, social and governance goals in their decisions collectively held $8.4 trillion in US investment assets as of early 2022. Leading investment firm BlackRock has more than doubled its holdings to more than $500 billions and other players are following suit.
ESG investing is becoming a permanent fixture on the global corporate landscape, but not without backlash. Some businesspeople and politicians in the United States argue that prioritizing ESG investing over shareholder well-being will diminish investor returns. Strong concerns about the viability of the ESG investment prompted Florida to withdraw $2 billion in BlackRock assets in a nationwide ESG purge.
But the battle is only heating up as President Joe Biden struck down a Senate bill that barred fund managers from including environmental, social and governance goals in their investment decisions. In the private sector, tycoons have launched companies to fight ESG investments, buying shares in companies like Apple and Disney to undermine management activism.
Without a doubt, ESG investing is creating a storm in the United States, but beyond the excitement around ESG investing, what are the implications? Maximizing shareholder well-being is the main objective of an investment fund and ESG funds should not be pursued if they do not achieve this objective. Some postulate that since shareholders own the company, they should be free to advocate for policies that achieve ESG objectives. Therefore, ESG investing can be compatible with maximizing shareholder welfare.
However, companies must ensure that shareholders appreciate the costs and benefits of ESG investing. Shareholders may see the virtue of using their investments to effect social change, but knowing that ESG funds are uncompetitive will certainly alter their outlook. While research into the viability of ESG funds is in its infancy, studies show that they do not perform well for investors.
ESG funds have performed worse than their S&P counterparts, and typical fees for ESG funds can be three times the reported amount. Furthermore, empirical research does not provide compelling arguments for ESG investing. According to a financial paper by Samuel M. Hartzmark and Abigail B. Sussman, there is no evidence that high sustainability funds outperform low sustainability funds. The important thing is that reviews and meta-analyses of ESG funds are equally disappointing in the assessment. A review of 1,141 peer-reviewed primary studies and 27 meta-reviews published between 2015 and 2020 showed that the case for ESG funds is inconclusive because their performance is indistinguishable from non-ESG funds.
Nor is it clear that ESG funds outperform socially. Research from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology finds that ESG goals don't always align with shareholder preferences. Even when there is an explicit mandate to pursue social goals, ESG funds still vote against shareholders. The MIT findings show that Vanguard and BlackRock voted against proposals requiring disclosure of board diversity and skills across Apple, Salesforce, Twitter, Discovery and Facebook.
Shockingly enough, the Vanguard Social Index Fund voted against nearly every environmental and social resolution it examined during 2006–19. ESG funds are not only uncommitted to the pursuit of shareholders' social objectives, but also underperform in environmental and governance indicators. A large study by university researchers indicates that ESG funds own stocks with higher carbon emissions per unit of revenue, demonstrate lower carbon performance based on gross emissions output and emission intensity, and have lower levels of independence from the board.
By objective measures, ESG funds are failing to promote social objectives and generate returns for shareholders. However, as shareholders own the companies, they can always lobby for ESG funds, but companies should never design these instruments without shareholders' consent or providing accurate information about their viability. Furthermore, politicians and regulators must desist from imposing ESG targets on companies. ESG investing is activism, and companies can determine whether to pursue social activism at the behest of shareholders without interference from politicians.
