Spend any time talking about responsible investing, and quickly the conversation turns to whether it hurts or helps returns. The answer is neither, as I argued in a blog post last fall. But this discussion always comes from the perspective of relative returns—that is, whether responsible investing can help an investor outperform a benchmark. What we never ask is perhaps a more interesting question: Could responsible investing improve the return of the benchmark itself? And wouldn’t that in turn help all investors?
This question is especially relevant for so-called passive investors—those who are trying to be the market instead of beat the market. In a world that justifies responsible investing only on the basis of relative returns, there’s no room for such an investor. Which is a shame, given the potential benefits of improving returns on a universal basis. But it doesn’t have to be this way.
To examine the topic further, let’s draw a distinction between active investors on the one hand and passive investors on the other.
Living in a world of relative returns
Let’s say you’ve identified an issue as being financially “material” to a public company. That is, you believe it will affect the company’s revenues or costs and therefore its intrinsic value. But this is only the beginning of the game. If your beliefs are in line with investor consensus and this issue is “priced” into the stock, there’s nothing to do. It’s only when you’ve identified what you believe to be an underpriced (or overpriced, if you intend to go short) security that it’s time to trade. And it’s only when your bet proves out and the security increases in value more than the benchmark average that your efforts are justified.
This is the active investor’s path to success in the world of relative returns, whether you describe your approach to determining financial materiality as “responsible investing” or not. The payoff comes only from owning a portfolio that differs sufficiently from the benchmark and consistently contains stocks with above-average returns.
The value of active ownership
The situation is very different if you choose to simply own everything and not worry about outperforming the benchmark. In this case you could take the same financial materiality analysis and use it not to decide whether to own a given stock but rather—through active ownership—to encourage the laggards to become better and the leaders to continue gaining ground.
Can active ownership encourage lagging companies to become better and leading companies to continue gaining ground?
If successful, this could make any of the companies in the benchmark worth more than they would have been otherwise. But there’s a catch: While it’s easy to measure the value of differentiated stock picking—just compare the portfolio’s return with that of the benchmark—how do we compare the value of a company whose behavior changed due to active ownership to the value of that same company without active ownership? It would be purely hypothetical—a bit like asking someone to measure exactly how the world would be different had the Allies lost World War II.
And yet just because we can’t measure the value of active ownership precisely, does that mean it’s not worth doing? Clearly, investors (and the broader community) would be better off if shareholders could have prevented the mine break at Vale, the emissions cheating scandal at Volkswagen, the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, or the Enron debacle. And this is true even if we can’t measure exactly by how much.
The bottom line
Active ownership can’t make miracles happen. And it can’t prevent all bad things. But shareholders successfully pressuring public companies to address material risks could help increase overall market returns. This would reward both passive and active investors, who could continue to add excess return to an even higher base level. It may be hard to measure, but it seems like that must be worth something.
Potential Parametric solution
For more than 20 years, our Responsible Investing capability has offered a robust and continually evolving menu of ESG screens and licensed indexes, giving investors a wide range of portfolio design choices. In addition, our proxy-voting guidelines follow corporate-governance best practices to safeguard shareholder capital, and they consider the relevant environmental and social implications of management and shareholder proposals.
Jennifer Sireklove, CFA, Managing Director, Investment Strategy
Ms. Sireklove leads the Investment Strategy team at Parametric, which is responsible for all aspects of Parametric’s equity-based investment strategies. In addition, she has direct investment responsibility for Parametric’s emerging market and international equity strategies, and chairs Parametric’s Stewardship Committee. Previously, she helped build Parametric’s active ownership and custom ESG portfolio construction practices. Prior to joining Parametric in 2013, she worked in in equity research, primarily covering the energy, utility and industrial sectors at firms including D.A. Davidson and McAdams Wright Ragen. Jennifer earned an MBA in Finance and Accounting from the University of Chicago, and a B.A. in Economics from Reed College, has been a CFA® charterholder since 2006 and is a current member of the CFA Society of Seattle.
The views expressed in these posts are those of the authors and are current only through the date stated. These views are subject to change at any time based upon market or other conditions, and Parametric and its affiliates disclaim any responsibility to update such views. These views may not be relied upon as investment advice and, because investment decisions for Parametric are based on many factors, may not be relied upon as an indication of trading intent on behalf of any Parametric strategy. The discussion herein is general in nature and is provided for informational purposes only. There is no guarantee as to its accuracy or completeness. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. All investments are subject to the risk of loss.