boosting sustainable investing in asia and the pacific by
TRANSCRIPT
PO LICY BRIE F
Boosting Sustainable Investing in Asia and the Pacific by Public Institutional Investors
2 BOOSTING SUSTAINABLE INVESTING IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC BY PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS
Disclaimer: The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this policy brief do not
imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Where the designation “country or area” appears, it covers
countries, territories, cities or areas. Bibliographical and other references have, wherever possible, been
verified. The United Nations bears no responsibility for the availability or functioning of URLs. The
opinions, figures and estimates set forth in this publication should not necessarily be considered as
reflecting the views or carrying the endorsement of the United Nations. The mention of firm names and
commercial products does not imply the endorsement of the United Nations.
The MPFD Policy Briefs aim at generating a forward-looking discussion among policymakers, researchers
and other stakeholders to help forge political will and build a regional consensus on needed policy actions
and pressing reforms. Policy Briefs are issued without formal editing. This policy brief on Boosting
Sustainable Investing in Asia and the Pacific by Public Institutional Investors is an expanded and updated
version of a section on boosting SDG investments by public institutional investors in chapter 5 of the 2021
edition of ESCAP’s Economic and Social Survey of Asia and the Pacific. It is prepared by Vatcharin
Sirimaneetham. Hamza Ali Malik and Sweta Saxena provided feedback and overall guidance. The graphic
layout was created by Pannipa Jangvithaya.
Please cite this paper as: Sirimaneetham, Vatcharin (2021). Boosting sustainable investing in Asia and
the Pacific by public institutional investors. MPFD Policy Brief, No. 120. Bangkok: ESCAP.
For further information on this policy brief, please address your enquiries to: Hamza Ali Malik
Director, Macroeconomic Policy and Financing for Development Division
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)
Email: [email protected]
Tracking number: ESCAP/ 1-PB / 9
3 BOOSTING SUSTAINABLE INVESTING IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC BY PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS
The financing needs and investment requirements to
achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
were considerably large for many Asia-Pacific
economies even before the COVID-19 pandemic.
The pandemic has exacerbated such challenges,
underscoring the need to explore innovative
financing and investment sources. This policy brief
explores how to increase investments in sustainable
development by institutional investors, which are
generally defined as organizations that pool funds
from other entities to make financial investments.
Different types of institutional investors have
different investment strategies based on their
fiduciary duties and risk tolerance level. The focus
here is on pension funds and sovereign wealth funds,
which are often public or quasi-public in nature.
Among the various policy options to increase
contribution to the SDGs by institutional investors
(UNEP, 2015), this policy brief focuses on two
policy areas, namely, amending investment rules to
boost sustainable investments and incorporating
environmental, social and governance factors into
investment strategies.
A. POTENTIAL TO INCREASE
SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENTS BY
PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS
IS CONSIDERABLE
The assets under management by Asia-Pacific pension
funds and sovereign wealth funds are very large. The
value of these assets amounted to about $8.5 trillion as of
end-2020, of which $5.5 trillion was in developing
economies. Despite economic disruptions caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic, the total asset value increased by
12.5 per cent from $7.5 trillion at end-2019. Among
others, developing Asia-Pacific economies with large
asset values of pension and sovereign wealth funds
includes China, the Republic of Korea and Singapore
(figure 1, panel a). As a share of GDP, these assets are
sizeable in such countries as Brunei Darussalam, Kiribati,
Timor-Leste and Tuvalu, primarily driven by revenues
coming from natural resources (figure 1, panel b).
FIGURE 1: ASSETS OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS
IN SOME ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIES ARE TREMENDOUS IN SIZE
a. Billions of United States dollar
b. Percentage of GDP
Source: Author, based on OMFIF (2021).
0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000
Taiwan, China
Russian Federation
Turkey
India
Malaysia
Republic of Korea
Australia
Singapore
China
Japan
Pension fund
Sovereign wealth fund
0 200 400 600 800 1,000
Nauru
Kazakhstan
Azerbaijan
Malaysia
Kiribati
Solomon Islands
Tuvalu
Singapore
Brunei Darussalam
Timor-Leste
Pension fund
Sovereign wealth fund
4 BOOSTING SUSTAINABLE INVESTING IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC BY PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS
The potential to increase sustainable investments by
public institutional investors is considerable. In
addition to their large size in terms of asset values,
other factors include:
o First, the liability profiles of pension funds
and sovereign wealth funds are usually long
term, which makes them well suited to hold
long-term assets in development projects.
o Second, institutional investors have
demonstrated keen interest in contributing
to the achievement of the SDGs. In a survey
of 175 Asia-Pacific institutional investors,
the share of respondents who did not
believe in sustainable investments fell from
23 per cent in 2017 to only 10 per cent in
2019 (Schroders, 2019). About two-thirds of
the respondents also noted the increasing
role of sustainability among institutional
investors in the following five years. The
global surveys of institutional investors
show a similar trend.1
o Third, a survey of over 3,000 institutional
investors worldwide shows that there are
short-term plans to expand or make new
investments in emerging and frontier
economies, with infrastructure as the most
preferred sector among the public
respondents (Narayanan, 2018). Relatedly,
public pension funds and sovereign wealth
funds are also reallocating their assets away
from domestic bonds towards equities and
alternatives with higher risks such as real
estate and private equity (Hentov, Petrov,
and Odedra (2018), and Hentov, Elliot, and
Alexander Petrov (2020)).
o Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic not only
piques interest on sustainability among
institutional investors (FTI Consulting
(2020), and See Tho (2020)), but the low
1 In just one year after the SDGs were announced,
a survey of institutional investors worldwide
reveals that 75 per cent and 62 per cent of the
respondents believed the Goals would bring
reputational benefits and higher investment
returns, respectively (ShareAction, 2016).
interest rate environment also means that
fund managers may need to explore
alternative, higher-yield asset classes.2
B. WHAT IS HOLDING BACK
PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL
INVESTORS TO INCREASE
SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENTS?
Despite the large potential, the contribution of
institutional investors to sustainable development
appears limited. For example, in the world’s major
pension markets, up to three quarters of their total
portfolio is invested in liquid assets (such as money
market instruments) compared with less than 3 per
cent in infrastructure projects (United Nations,
2017). Similarly, institutional investors accounted
for only 1 per cent of investment in 163
infrastructure projects under public-private
partnerships in low- and middle-income countries
in 2015 (World Bank, 2016). A large part of such
financing still came from traditional bank loans.
Investment rules governing pension funds in many
economies are constraining their ability to invest
sustainably. According to OECD (2020), certain
pension funds in countries such as Armenia,
Georgia, India, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, the Republic
of Korea and the Russian Federation are not allowed
to invest in domestic equities or allowed but with
maximum limits and/or only in equities listed in
home or developed markets. For investments in
sovereign bonds, most of these countries also
impose maximum portfolio limits and/or place
different caps for bonds issued by central
governments and local governments in own and
other countries. For investments in corporate
bonds, often there are requirements to invest only
in bonds with certain ratings or those with State
guarantees. For example, in Hong Kong, China,
2 Nonetheless, Glossner, et al. (2020) shows that,
in the months after the pandemic began, pension
funds in the United States decreased their
holdings of listed firms rated with favourable
environmental and social scores.
5 BOOSTING SUSTAINABLE INVESTING IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC BY PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS
there is no portfolio limits if pension funds invest in
investment-grade bonds, listed equities, and bonds
issued by listed companies. Overall, domestic
investment rules for pension funds appear less
stringent in such countries as Australia, Indonesia,
Japan, Maldives, New Zealand, Thailand and
Turkey. For foreign investments, portfolio limits
are, as expected, more restrictive. For example,
pension funds in India and Indonesia are not
allowed to invest in foreign equities and bonds. In
Hong Kong, China, at least 30 per cent of the fund
must be held in Hong Kong dollar currency
investments.
Corporate culture and related rules also explain
limited sustainable investing. These include, among
others:
o First, staff compensation packages
incentivize investment managers to
prioritize short-term performance over
long-term goals (Gottschalk and Poon,
2018). For example, according to a survey
by Aviva (2014), while 60 per cent of
pension funds are of the view that the key
investment period is longer than a year, up
to two thirds of them review fund
managers’ performance on a quarterly basis.
This is also the case when institutional
investors outsource their funds to asset
management companies, which have short-
term orientation.
o Second, many institutional investors lack
in-house expertise to assess the risks of
complicated projects, such as cross-border
infrastructure projects.
o Third, certain investment regulations limit
investments in asset classes that could
potentially contribute to sustainable
development. For instance, institutional
investors in many Asia-Pacific economies
are not permitted by law to invest directly
in real estate or infrastructure (Biswas,
2016).
o Finally, certain fiduciary rules and a home
bias in investment decisions, especially
among institutional investors in more
developed markets, often reduce
investments in foreign countries. For
example, pension funds in Japan do not hold
any debt securities and equities issued by
non-residents, while those in the Republic
of Korea and the Russian Federation engage
less in foreign-issued instruments relative to
investment funds and insurance companies
in their countries (figure 2)
FIGURE 2: SHARE OF NON-RESIDENT DEBT SECURITIES AND EQUITIES HELD BY INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS AT END-2019
Source: Author, based on OECD Institutional Investors Statistics 2020.
0102030405060708090
100
De
bt secu
ritie
s
Equ
itie
s
De
bt secu
ritie
s
Equ
itie
s
De
bt secu
ritie
s
Equ
itie
s
De
bt secu
ritie
s
Equ
itie
s
De
bt secu
ritie
s
Equ
itie
s
De
bt secu
ritie
s
Equ
itie
s
De
bt secu
ritie
s
Equ
itie
s
De
bt secu
ritie
s
Equ
itie
s
De
bt secu
ritie
s
Equ
itie
s
Investmentfunds
Insurancefirms
Pensionfunds
Investmentfunds
Insurancefirms
Pensionfunds
Investmentfunds
Insurancefirms
Pensionfunds
Japan Republic of Korea Russian Federation
% o
f to
tal hold
ing o
f in
str
um
ents
Issued by residents Issued by non-residents
6 BOOSTING SUSTAINABLE INVESTING IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC BY PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS
Beyond corporate-level factors, the nature of
development projects also plays a role. Among
others, development projects often have long-term
maturity, which imply greater investment risks
and uncertainty. Long-term projects are also more
vulnerable to political risks, such as sudden
changes in a government and its policy direction.
More broadly, returns from investing in
development projects are usually underestimated
because their positive spillover effects, such as
greater transport connectivity and energy security,
are not fully taken into account.
C. AMENDING INVESTMENT
POLICIES AND RULES TO
UNLEASH INVESTMENTS FOR
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Relaxing some of the investment rules can channel
more financial resources into sustainable
development. As of July 2021, out of 31 Asia-Pacific
economies with available sovereign credit risk ratings,
18 are below investment grade (figure 3). Several other
economies are unrated. As a result, corporate and
project bonds in these countries are typically non-
investment grade because sovereign bonds usually
carry the highest rating in any economy. Thus, when
institutional investors can invest only in investment
grade securities, bonds issued by firms that promote
sustainable development in these countries, such as
climate-resilient infrastructure, will miss financing
opportunities.3 Meanwhile, partial relaxation of foreign
investment rules can help mobilize sizeable financial
resources for other developing countries. For example,
if only 1 per cent of assets managed by pension funds
in India could be invested overseas, this would amount
to 1.5 times the size of foreign aid that its neighbouring
country Nepal received in 2018. Similarly, in the case
of Indonesian pension funds, that would be 2.2 times
the size of Timor-Leste’s foreign aid.
FIGURE 3: SOVEREIGN CREDIT RISK RATINGS
ACROSS DEVELOPING ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIES
Source: Author, based on https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/rating.
Note: The ratings are based on Moody’s. (1) is prime, (2) is high grade, (3) is upper-medium grade, (4) is lower-medium grade, (5) is non-investment
grade speculative, (6) is highly speculative, (7) is substantial risks, (8) is extremely speculative, and (9) is in default with little prospect for recovery.
3 For example, sovereign wealth funds in Singapore and
the United Arab Emirates jointly funded a clean energy
holding in India, hence supporting India’s policy towards
green electricity (17 AM, 2019).
0
1
2
3
4
5
Aaa
Aa1
Aa2
Aa3
A1
A2
A3
Baa
1
Baa
2
Baa
3
Ba1
Ba2
Ba3
B1
B2
B3
Ca
a1
Ca
a2
Ca
a3
Ca C
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Num
ber
of
countr
ies
7 BOOSTING SUSTAINABLE INVESTING IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC BY PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS
Adjustments in investment policies of sovereign
wealth funds could also mobilize additional financial
resources for sustainable development. For example,
take the case of Azerbaijan’s State Oil Fund. As of
March 2021, the Fund’s assets stood at $42.8 billion,
or about the same size of the country’s GDP in 2020.4
The portfolio is oriented towards fixed-income and
money market instruments (64 per cent of total
investment), developed countries (59 per cent), and
financial instruments dominated in United States
dollar, Euro or British pound (94 per cent) (figure 4,
panel a).5 While about a fifth of the Fund’s
investments are in emerging economies, they appear
to be large economies with strong a credit rating, as
only 1.3 per cent of its fixed-income investments is
in non-investment grade securities (figure 4, panel
b). Also, most fixed-income instruments held by the
Fund have a maturity of less than three years, which
is less well suited to long-term development projects.
In essence, adjustments in investment policies that
allow larger investments in countries and financial
instruments with higher risks would raise sovereign
wealth funds’ contribution to sustainable
development, although the impact of such
investments on portfolio risk should be carefully
reviewed at the same time.
In addition to relaxing investment restrictions, a
certain amount and share of investments could be
allocated directly to sustainable investments through
regulatory changes. In Europe, institutional investors
set the amount of funds that they would invest in
sustainable investments (Phenix Capital Group,
2017). In Japan, the Government Pension Investment
Fund, the world’s largest pension fund, allocates a
certain share of its investments to environmentally
and socially responsible investments. This resulted in
more than 300 per cent growth in Japan’s sustainable
financial assets between 2016 and 2018 (Bray and
Moon, 2019).
FIGURE 4: AZERBAIJAN’S STATE OIL FUND INVESTS PRIMARILY
IN INVESTMENT GRADE FIXED-INCOME INSTRUMENTS
a. Investment portfolio breakdown
b. Breakdown of fixed-income instruments
Source: State Oil Fund of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
4 For further information, see www.oilfund.az/en.
5 On asset allocation, while transfers to the state budget and
the central bank is the largest portion, the Fund has also
made sizeable investments in national development
projects, especially in social assistances to refugees.
Fixed-income Equities Real estate GoldAAA AA A BBB Non-investment grade
8 BOOSTING SUSTAINABLE INVESTING IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC BY PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS
D. INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY
CONSIDERATION INTO DECISION
MAKING TO ENHANCE
SUSTAINABLE INVESTING
Asia-Pacific public institutional investors should
actively adopt the use of environmental, social and
governance (ESG) strategies. Strategies such as
social impact investments, direct engagements with
companies and full ESG integration into investment
analyses and decisions can have a greater impact on
sustainable development compared with passive
strategies, such as negative screening (e.g. when
firms avoid investing in sectors that are deemed
environmentally harmful) (Schlaffer, Hobisch and
Cavalli, 2020). A recent survey showed that, while
56 per cent of the sample institutional investors
from the Asia-Pacific region were already
mainstreaming ESG factors into investment
processes, that ratio was around 70 per cent for
European respondents (Schroders, 2019). Moreover,
together with ESG integration, negative screening
remains the most popular strategy among
institutional investors in the region. Globally,
impact investment is now the most widely used
investment strategy among ESG-active public
pension and sovereign wealth funds (UNCTAD,
2020). Another survey also suggests the use of
traditional, passive strategies among institutional
investors is expected to decrease over the coming
few years (McKinsey, 2019).
Various actions can be taken by institutional
investors to pursue more active ESG strategies.
Among others, a revision in corporate investment
guidelines can facilitate such a shift. For instance,
Thailand’s Government Pension Fund introduced
new guidelines in 2019 that adopted ESG criteria
across all investments, such as the use of a scoring
tool to assess investment opportunities in bonds and
equities (GIIN, 2020).6 Another factor is solid
technical capacity of investment teams, which is
required to prepare complex investment analyses,
such as quantitative investment models that feature
ESG scores. Yet, almost 30 per cent of Asia-Pacific
institutional investors in a survey cited that more
training would help increase sustainable investing
by their organizations (Schroders, 2019). Also,
nearly 40 per cent of surveyed institutional
investors in the region face difficulty in measuring
and managing risks when investing in sustainable
development (figure 5). At a broad level,
institutional investors should actively participate in
national and multilateral initiatives that promote
sustainable development. For example, in Japan, the
2014 principles for responsible institutional
investors were signed by 281 institutional investors
as of April 2020 (GIIN, 2020).
FIGURE 5: UNCLEAR DEFINITIONS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
ARE THE MAIN CHALLENGES FOR SUSTAINABLE INVESTING
Source: Author, based on OECD Institutional Investors Statistics 2020.
6 Incorporating ESG criteria into bond investments can be
more challenging than equity investment because it involves multiple bond types and issuers (such as unlisted
companies and non-corporate entities) (Inderst and
Stewart, 2018).
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Cost
Difficulty in measuring and mangaing risk
Lack of transparency and reported data
Performance concerns
Lack of clear, agreed definitions ofsustainable development
Percentage of survey respondents
Global
Asia-Pacific region
9 BOOSTING SUSTAINABLE INVESTING IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC BY PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS
Financial market regulators can also play an
important role. For institutional investors to
effectively incorporate ESG criteria into their
investment decisions, an important prerequisite is
accurate, consistent and regular sustainability
reporting by their existing and potential investees.
Indeed, the lack of clear, agreed definitions of
sustainable development (figure 5) and the
transparency of companies’ performance reporting
(Schroders, 2020) are often rated by Asia-Pacific
institutional investors as the main obstacles to
sustainable investing.7 In this regard, financial
sector regulators should seek to ensure common
ESG definitions and standards (at least at a national
level) and provide incentives for or legally require
ESG reporting by firms. Policy effort on this front
could be stepped up. For example, only 6 of 18
Asia-Pacific stock markets require ESG reporting
as one of their listing requirements and only half of
them offer written guidance and ESG reporting or
recently conducted ESG-related training
(Sustainable Stock Exchanges, 2018).
CONCLUSION
This policy brief examines how to increase
sustainable investments by public institutional
investors in Asia and the Pacific. To leverage the
largely untapped potential of pension funds and
sovereign wealth funds in Asia and the Pacific, it
calls for relaxing certain restrictions that govern
their investment policies. Public institutional
investors themselves should aim at adopting
investment strategies that are more SDG-oriented.
Table 1 highlights specific policy issues for Asia-
Pacific economies with development levels.
Finally, national policymakers and multilateral
development partners should strive for a long-
overdue common definitions and reporting
standards for sustainable investing.
TABLE 1: A SNAPSHOT OF RECOMMENDED POLICY ACTIONS
Possible policy actions
Less developed countries
• For pension funds, relax investment restrictions on domestic equities and government and corporate bonds
• For sovereign wealth funds, allocate part of investment for domestic development projects
• Increase awareness of sustainable investing
Emerging economies
• Relax restrictions on foreign investments and investments in non-investment grade yet SDG-oriented securities
• For institutional investors, adopt more active ESG investment strategies and enhance technical capacity
• For financial regulators, encourage or require ESG reporting and ensure common ESG definitions and standards.
Source: Author.
7 While potentially low financial returns of sustainable
investing are also a common concern, studies have shown
that that ESG-oriented investments can offer higher
yields. For example, Ben Ameur and Senanedsch (2014)
found that investing in Asia-Pacific equities that engage
with corporate social responsibility exhibits lower
systematic risk and risk premiums than equity
investments in the conventional market. Outside the
region, bonds issued by American companies with better
ESG ratings tend to yield higher rates of returns than the
market benchmark (Hoepnerab and Nilssona, 2017).
10 BOOSTING SUSTAINABLE INVESTING IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC BY PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS
References
17 AM (2019). Institutional Intentionality: Aligning institutional investors with the global SDG agenda. 17
Asset Management.
Aviva (2014). A roadmap for sustainable capital markets: how can the UN Sustainable Development Goals
harness the global capital markets? Available at sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/
documents/10574avivabooklet.pdf.
Ben Ameur, Hachmi and Jérôme Senanedsch (2014). Socially Responsible Investments: An International
Empirical Study of Time-Varying Risk Premiums. Journal of Applied Business Research, 30(5).
Biswas, Rajiv (2016). Mobilising private capital flows for infrastructure development in Asia and the Pacific.
Discussion paper prepared for the first high-level follow-up dialogue on financing for development in
Asia and the Pacific, Republic of Korea, 30-31 March.
Bray, Chad, and Louise Moon (2019). Asia behind in sustainable investments, but attitudes are changing,
industry leaders say. South China Morning Post, 18 October.
FTI Consulting (2020). Stakeholder capitalism in the spotlight: how has COVID-19 changed institutional
investors’ approach to ESG? 8 October. Available at www.jdsupra.com/post/
10ileserver.aspx?fName=ec710b78-23aa-4ee4-84ac-55d2bd4d9c05.pdf.
Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) (2020). Annual Impact Investor Survey 2020. 11 June.ner
Glossner, Simon, Pedro Matos, Stefano Ramelli, and Alexander F. Wagner (2020). Where Do Institutional
Investors Seek Shelter when Disaster Strikes? Evidence from COVID-19. ECGI Working Paper Series
in Finance Number 688/2020.
Gottschalk, Richard, and Daniel Poon (2018). Scaling up finance for the sustainable development goals:
experimenting with models of multilateral development banking. Geneva: United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).
Hentov, Elliot, Alexander Petrov, and Sejal Odedra (2018). How do Public Pension Funds invest? From
Local to Global Assets. State Street Global Advisors.
Hentov, Elliot, and Alexander Petrov (2020). How do sovereign wealth funds invest? Less and less
contrarian. State Street Global Advisors.
Hoepnerab, Andreas and Marcus Nilssona (2017). No news is good news: Corporate social responsibility
ratings and fixed income portfolios. Mimeo.
Inderst, Georg and Fiona Stewart (2018). Incorporating Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)
Factors into Fixed Income Investment. World Bank.
McKinsey (2019). Institutional Investor Survey 2019.
Narayanan, Raghavan (2018). Mirage or Reality? Attracting and Retaining Institutional Investors in
Emerging Markets and Developing Economies Emerging Findings from an Independent Evaluation.
11 BOOSTING SUSTAINABLE INVESTING IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC BY PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS
Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum (OMFIF) (2021). Global public investors 2020. Available
at www.omfif.org/gpi2021/.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2020). Annual survey of investment
regulation of pension funds and other pension providers. Available at oecd.org/daf/fin/private-
pensions/2020-Survey-Investment-Regulation-Pension-Funds-and-Other-Pension-Providers.pdf.
Phenix Capital (2017). European institutional investors begin to commit to the UN Sustainable Development
Goals. 29 September. Available at phenixcapitalgroup.com/features/2017/9/29/european-institutional-
investors-begin-to-commit-to-the-un-sustainable-development-goals.
Schlaffer, Wolfgang, Manuel Hobisch, and Tommaso Cavalli (2020). ESG investing: the rise of a new
standard. Banking Hub. 18 March.
Schroders (2019). Institutional Investor Study 2019: geopolitics and investor expectations. Available at
schroders.com/en/sg/institutional-investor/insights/institutional-investor-study/.
_____ (2020). Institutional Investor Study 2020: sustainability. Available at
schroders.com/en/us/institutional/insights/institutional-investor-study-2020/sustainability/.
See Tho, Alexis (2020). Institutional investors say COVID-19 pushed ESG to forefront. Financial Management Magazine, 19 August.
ShareAction (2016). Transforming our world through investment: An introductory study of institutional
investors’ role in supporting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative (2018). 2018 report on progress: a paper prepared for the Sustainable
Stock Exchanges 2018 Global Dialogue. Available at sseinitiative.org/wpcontent/
uploads/2018/10/SSE_On_Progress_Report_FINAL.pdf.
United Nations (2017). Financing for Development: Progress and Prospects – report of the Inter-agency Task Force on Financing for Development 2017. 22 May. E/FFDF/2017/2.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2020). Trade and Development Report 2020: From Global Pandemic to Prosperity for All – avoiding another lost decade. (Geneva).
UNCTAD/TDR/2020.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2015). Financial reform, institutional investors and
sustainable development: a review of current policy initiatives and proposals for further progress.
Inquiry Working Paper, No. 15/07.
World Bank (2016). Sources of financing for public-private partnership investments in 2015. Washington,
D.C.: Public-Private Partnership Group. Available at ppi.worldbank.org/content/dam/
PPI/resources/ppi_resources/topic/2015-PPP-Investments-Sources.pdf.
Get connected. Follow us.
www.unescap.org
facebook.com/unescap
twitter.com/unescap
instagram.com/unitednationsescap
youtube.com/unescap
linkedin.com/company/united-nations-escap