The assumption that environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues are ‘extra’-financial is wrong, but better metrics are needed to prove their short- to medium-term material impact on company performance, according to Roger Urwin, global head of investment content at Towers Watson, and one of the world’s most influential investment advisors. Speaking to Responsible-investor.com, Urwin, who is also an advisory director to MSCI Barra, which recently bought RiskMetrics, the New York-based risk and ESG firm, said he predicted that one development that might dispel the extra-financial argument could be the launch of ESG credit ratings, akin to bond ratings. “There’s a basic assumption that if extra financial issues matter then they should already be there in investment analysis and decisions. It’s not an unreasonable assumption, but as you prod at it you realise that it is a weak argument.” Urwin said that because fund manager mindsets are set on 3- or 12-month returns because of the business structure, there was an “all-too-ready reflection” that extra financial impacts might only affect share prices over a longer time-frame: “I think that is wrong because extra financial influence on stocks is set at a gradient which is quite low which means that it may take five years before you can see the effects. But just because you can’t necessarily assess it in 3 or 12 months that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It’s quite a subtle investment belief that has gone wrong in the investment community. More…

Source: Responsible Investor