Executive summary:
- Active ownership has emerged as an essential engagement tool, extending beyond equities to encompass fixed income markets.
- Despite increasing availability, challenges persist in environmental, social and governance (ESG) data coverage across various segments. While corporate credit markets have led to sustainability integration, lower-rated and privately held companies often exhibit limited ESG data coverage.
- Third-party data providers have continued to expand their reporting capabilities and coverage in measuring greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
- Sustainable outcome-focused strategies have expanded beyond green bonds to encompass various segments, including high yield bonds, emerging market debt, and multi-asset credit strategies.
ESG integration is a trend financial markets are familiar with, but that doesn’t mean all asset classes are at the same levels of progress. ESG means different things to different people, and its integration into equity investment does not represent the same journey experienced in fixed income.
Fixed income markets are witnessing a rapid evolution in ESG integration and product offerings to align with the dynamic sustainability preferences of clients. At Russell Investments, we have monitored practitioners and have identified the pivotal trends shaping ESG integration in the asset class.
Engagement
Over recent years, we have observed rapid shifts with practitioners embracing engagement practices. Active ownership has emerged as an essential engagement tool, extending beyond equities to encompass fixed income markets.
Bond investors, as significant capital providers, are increasingly engaging with issuers on ESG-related agendas to assess risk and return opportunities. While bondholders may lack direct voting rights, their influence in shaping corporate behavior through proactive engagement is substantial. Successful engagement initiatives have led to increased transparency, labeled bond issuance, and the adoption of sustainability initiatives.
However, since fixed income investing is primarily focused on diversifying and moderating the risks associated with equity investing, it is unsurprising that ESG considerations have historically mostly been considered a risk mitigation exercise rather than the expression of sustainability criteria.
Data coverage
Despite increasing availability, challenges persist in ESG data coverage across various segments of the fixed income market. While corporate credit markets have led to sustainability integration, lower-rated and privately held companies often exhibit limited ESG data transparency.
Regulation
Regulators around the globe are playing a vital role in how the investment industry is incorporating ESG practices. European regulators have introduced the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) to increase the transparency and accountability of investments claiming to have ESG or sustainability objectives.
The European regulator has also established a classification framework—EU Taxonomy—to determine whether economic activity is an Environmentally Sustainable Investment. There are signs that other regions, like the U.S., are following a similar path toward developing taxonomies and standards.
However, reportable data gaps still exist in the fixed income market around ESG considerations, with bond investors trying to comply with regulations despite the data not being readily available for certain fixed income segments.
Reporting/climate risk measures
Regulatory mandates and investor demand are accelerating the adoption of ESG reporting and climate risk measures in portfolios. Third-party data providers have continued to expand their reporting capabilities and coverage in measuring GHG emissions, with frameworks such as the TCFD providing valuable guidance on measuring and reporting climate risks.
The sustainability reporting criteria continues to expand, with examples of additional categories including the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While the SDGs provide a common framework for defining the positive impacts, they leave much subjectivity in mapping underlying investments to certain SDGs, allowing different methodologies to measure investment impacts.
For example, one methodology might look for revenue or activities to map to SDGs, while another will estimate a positive minus negative impact by converting all activities into asset values. Therefore, investors should be mindful of different methodologies and how they can lead to different impact outcomes.
Product availability