Overcoming ESG Hurdles: From Data to Impact

Executive summary:

Careful data management and having a formal impact measurement framework in place are essential to preventing greenwashing and ensuring consistent impact delivery.
Best practices are required for asset classes such as private markets that lag behind in terms of adoption and responsible environmental, social and governance (ESG) practices.
Investing in a way that actively contributes to a more sustainable future requires a deeper level of scrutiny and a more careful application of ESG data than adopting a simple de-risking approach.
Managing sustainable risk requires a consistent and efficient process for identifying risks that pose financial materiality, striking a balance between the expected risk with expected reward.

In pursuit of financial and sustainable objectives for our clients, Russell Investments has encountered several challenges stemming from the inherent limitations of ESG data.

These limitations include poor data coverage, lack of comparability among data providers, weak correlations to actual corporate performance, and the challenges of using backward looking data to invest with foresight. We have learned that harnessing ESG data in support of investment results requires creativity and agility, but also beneficial practices and high-value solutions that are developed through persistence.

Below we describe four case studies highlighting the use of ESG data and practices in our investment process.

Case Study 1: Converting divergent data into cohesive impact fund reporting

Problem: Collecting and reporting on private markets portfolios presents unique data challenges due to differences across asset types, structures, and key operational metrics. ESG reporting is hampered by these hurdles as well as a lack of consensus around templates and metrics.

The challenge is heightened for impact funds, which must also establish impact key performance indicators. Inconsistencies between managers are common, but we have found that even individual managers deliver inconsistent or erroneous data from one year to the next. To prevent greenwashing and ensure consistent impact delivery, careful data management and a formal impact measurement framework are essential.

Solution: Our primary aim was to enhance the reporting for our Global Impact Fund, which was incepted in 2015. To launch the project, the team undertook a survey of the landscape in two parts: 1) we surveyed a representative sample of multi-manager peers to compare and contrast best practices, and 2) we reviewed publicly available reporting templates.

Conversations with our peers revealed a wide range of practices, governance structures to supervise ESG objectives, and frameworks to support implementation. Based on this work, we identified the Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) IRIS+ system as the best fit template for standardization of the impact data we collect from managers.

The themes of our Global Impact Fund are climate, financial inclusion, and healthcare, so we selected approximately 25 relevant and aligned metrics from IRIS+, out of over 700, and supplemented them with 6 bespoke metrics to reflect our targeted investments more accurately. For example, a manager focused on promoting financial inclusion in emerging markets might report on the number of consumers helped who earn less than $10 per person per day.

Data aggregation and review is a critical step in any impact reporting effort because managers will record even common metrics (e.g. GHG emissions) in different ways. We issue an annual, proprietary impact measurement questionnaire to the underlying managers and then subject this data to scrubbing. We check the data against the previous year, the manager’s impact report, and our separate ESG due diligence questionnaire and work with each manager to confirm accuracy and reliability.

Outcome: We know that impact clients value reporting that shows the real-world, tangible effect of their investment dollars, so we built an online dashboard to warehouse the data, calculate impact, and map the outcomes to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We translate our clients’ investment dollars into specific results, such reporting reduced emissions (300,000 tonnes) as the equivalent number of cars (66,815) kept off the road.

Case Study 2: Promoting ESG transparency among private markets managers

Problem: Russell Investments conducts thousands of manager due diligence meetings per year across asset classes, and within each formal recommendation, we score the manager’s ESG process and capabilities. We also monitor industry trends in responsible investing via our annual Manager ESG Survey, through which we collect and analyze ESG information from hundreds of investment managers. Our efforts show that private markets managers and funds lag other asset classes in terms of adoption of responsible investing and ESG practices, transparency, and ESG reporting.

Solution: We developed a set of ESG Best Practices specific to private markets to encourage transparency and accountability. As a first step, we require that all private markets managers respond to our proprietary ESG questionnaire. Research analysts leverage this information and conduct a dedicated ESG review for each manager strategy prior to establishing a formal recommendation and before funding.

Outcome: The assessments and insights, compiled in our internal database, constitute a rare collection of expertise specific to ESG in private markets. Portfolio managers monitor the ESG risks associated with existing holdings via discussions with managers during periodic check ins and at AGMs.

Case study 3: Delivering a systematic “Sustainable Transition” equity strategy for completion portfolios

Problem: Russell Investments began developing ESG risk and decarbonization overlays for equity strategies in 2015, but our investment professionals recognized that investing in a way that actively contributes to a more sustainable future requires a deeper level of scrutiny and a more careful application of ESG data than a simple de-risking approach. For clients desiring a forward-looking systematic overlay, strategies must be carefully tailored to pinpoint and support businesses and sectors actively progressing towards more sustainable practices, technologies, and operations.

Solution: We designed a systematic approach to identifying securities that captures a company's positive impact on the environment and society while acknowledging the trade-offs between positive and negative outcomes. These securities make up our Sustainable Transition Stock Universe, an opportunity set drawn from a multi-faceted set of criteria including:

Positive Impact Today: We evaluate companies based on their revenues or services linked to SDGs and other positive impact themes.
Emerging Technologies: We consider technologies in development, measured by capital expenditure and patents held. These technologies are critical for driving sustainable change in the future.
Negative Impact Assessment: We assess companies based on the significance of their negative impact. Focusing on significance is critical because all companies have some level of negative impact. Instead, we identify and exclude those with activities that substantially limit their potential to contribute positively to sustainability.

Outcome:Completion Portfolio framework Case Study 4: Leveraging data to manage sustainability risks in multi-manager portfolios Problem: Solution:

Detect: Conduct a quantitative ESG Risk Analysis. This sustainability risk assessment is applied by portfolio management teams, typically quarterly, using third-party ESG data alongside Russell Investments stewardship outcomes.
Review: Gather qualitative ESG insights from subadvisors on high-ESG risk companies identified through the mix of data in step 1.
Inspect: Use outcomes from the quantitative and qualitative analysis to inform stewardship actions including engagement targets and proxy voting risks.
Engage: Record outcomes from stewardship actions to inform the next round of ESG Risk Analysis and EO action.

Russell Investments uses internal, proprietary tools – called PARIS and ENACT – to execute the EO process. PARIS aggregates Sustainalytics, MSCI, and Planetrics and other data points in a custom view, providing portfolio and security-level ESG data to support quantitative assessments. ENACT was built to house all qualitative insights collected at any time by our stewardship and EO activities – including engagements, third-party collaborations, and insights from subadvisors.

Outcome: The Enhanced Oversight process is an integrated and proactive approach to managing sustainability risks across our multi-manager portfolios which leverages multiple data sets and qualitative investment insights. Clients are eager to understand the scope and effectiveness of our manager oversight and engagement activity, and our proprietary tools support tracking of our activity, outcomes, and client reporting.

If you wish to learn more about any of the processes mentioned in this article, visit our responsible investing page or reach out to your Russell Investments contact.

Disclosures

These views are subject to change at any time based upon market or other conditions and are current as of the date at the top of the page. The information, analysis, and opinions expressed herein are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual or entity.

This material is not an offer, solicitation or recommendation to purchase any security.

Forecasting represents predictions of market prices and/or volume patterns utilizing varying analytical data. It is not representative of a projection of the stock market, or of any specific investment.

Nothing contained in this material is intended to constitute legal, tax, securities or investment advice, nor an opinion regarding the appropriateness of any investment. The general information contained in this publication should not be acted upon without obtaining specific legal, tax and investment advice from a licensed professional.

Please remember that all investments carry some level of risk, including the potential loss of principal invested. They do not typically grow at an even rate of return and may experience negative growth. As with any type of portfolio structuring, attempting to reduce risk and increase return could, at certain times, unintentionally reduce returns.

The information, analysis and opinions expressed herein are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual entity.

Frank Russell Company is the owner of the Russell trademarks contained in this material and all trademark rights related to the Russell trademarks, which the members of the Russell Investments group of companies are permitted to use under license from Frank Russell Company. The members of the Russell Investments group of companies are not affiliated in any manner with Frank Russell Company or any entity operating under the "FTSE RUSSELL" brand.

The Russell logo is a trademark and service mark of Russell Investments.

This material is proprietary and may not be reproduced, transferred, or distributed in any form without prior written permission from Russell Investments. It is delivered on an "as is" basis without warranty.

A message from Advisor Perspectives and VettaFi: To learn more about this and other topics, check out some of our videos.