Read time : 3 mins
Level : Advanced
By STAN CHOE AP Business Writer
NEW YORK (AP) — Maria Lettini already knew of the backlash against ESG investing when she took over as chief executive of US SIF last year.
US SIF is an advocacy group that supports sustainable investing, which encourages investors to consider a wider set of risks including the environment, social issues and corporate governance in hopes of improving their returns.
But returning to the U.S. after several years working in the U.K., Letting wasn’t prepared for how widespread the backlash against ESG was. Lettini spoke with The Associated Press about that and sustainable investing generally. The conversation has been edited for clarity and length.
Q: Is it true that investors in the U.K. and Europe are more into sustainable investing than in the U.S.?
A: In the U.K. and E.U., I would say I think the normal everyday population really cares about those issues. They care about the climate and impacts of climate change. They care about where their food comes from. They care about workers and a living wage. They care about what they’re doing in their communities and in their own backyards – and importantly how that influences and destroys nature not only for their families but also further afield.
I don’t think that’s much different than in the United States, if you start from the bottom up. You’ve seen recent polls showing people believe the U.S. needs to do something about climate change. Even if it’s a very partisan issue, the general public recognizes there’s a problem.
Where I think you do see some of the difference is as you start to move up the chain. The government is working on two sides. Some parts of the government are very engaged in responding to climate change. Others aren’t.
Q: And specifically for investors?
A: Globally, I don’t think there’s a huge divide and chasm between both sides of the pond. But I think there are some hurdles and a bit of a difference in the appetites of some of their clients.
Many clients in Europe and the U.K. expect that there will be a consideration of environmental and social risks and opportunities and are whole-heartedly supportive and believe their money managers are taking these criteria into account in a way that will complement their already existing investment philosophy and contribute to outperformance.
In the U.S., and a lot of it is probably because of political posturing, there’s a an onus to make sure every single consideration now has a financial impact on bottom lines in the short term. And frankly some of these risks and opportunities will have a longer term horizon.
Q: Were you surprised by the volume of anti-ESG movements in this country?
A: It was definitely more than I expected. Maybe that’s heightened because I now sit in Washington, D.C. Especially during the height of the ‘anti-ESG’ month in the House last year.
I guess I was surprised by the breadth and depth of the pushback. I was surprised, and probably not as well-educated, about how well funded the pushback campaign is, and how politically charged it actually has been.
What wasn’t surprising is that it didn’t really stir the pot that much. It didn’t gain momentum.
It also didn’t feel like it was consistent with their free-market discourse. From that respect, I thought the market did a pretty good job of explaining what ESG was and what it wasn’t and communicating a fairly consistent drumbeat of: This is also free market, this is fiduciary duty.
And we eventually did see an ebb in the backlash. Now we see momentum and excitement around the opportunities and benefits that climate transition can bring to communities, jobs and the financial markets. It created a real positive vibe at our annual conference in Chicago in June.
Q: How difficult has all the backlash made your job?
A: Our US SIF members, some of whom are pioneers of this sustainable industry, have stayed the course, even in Texas and Oklahoma, where you’ve seen push back with anti-ESG laws.
At the end of the day, what the market has been really good at doing is standing up to the culture wars and staying the course. As many state legislative sessions draw to a close for the year, out of almost 160 bills that we were tracking in states, we have only seen just a small handful (of anti-ESG) considerations become law. Several of the states are pushing to roll back some of those anti-ESG laws because it’s just bad business for state pensions and it’s costly.
Q: How differently do you envision things playing out depending on who wins the election?
A: We’re going to continue to advocate for what is best for sustainable capital markets. Those priorities aren’t going to change because of who’s in office.
It may seem boring and mundane, but better disclosure of material information and shareholders’ rights aren’t particularly partisan issues and are essential for efficient markets.
Frankly, this ‘woke capitalism,’ ‘anti-ESG’ rhetoric trying to stir the pot hasn’t been an instrumental platform for presidential candidates. Obviously, it didn’t work that well for (Florida Gov. Ron) DeSantis.
Q: How much has your first year atop US SIF differed from your expectations?
A: Not that much. None of our members have dialed back their sustainability philosophies.
This is an industry that’s grown very quickly. It’s maturing. Our membership is delivering on what clients are asking them to do. And investors want their capital invested in the best companies possible – those who will be resilient and leaders in the rapidly changing global capital markets landscape.