Latest fraudulent alert - last updated on Apr 2023. To find out more information and how to protect yourself, please click here.

Investment Institute

We need to talk about asset managers’ ESG credibility problem

  • 15 May 2023 (7 min read)

Key points:

  • Concerns around greenwashing reflect a degree of scepticism around sustainability claims
  • Asset managers should commit to greater transparency in an effort to drive change
  • This should help deepen engagement with investee companies, which could accelerate progress towards climate goals

Responsible asset managers may be loath to admit it, but they sometimes face a credibility problem.

In part, this stems from the idea that they could and should be more transparent about what they do, how they do it and why.

Greenwashing is a case in point. For all the millions of words devoted to it, significant instances of greenwashing at a corporate level remain relatively rare. Most issues in the asset management sector revolve, by and large, around the subjective nature of environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors and the definitional uncertainty around what constitutes a sustainable investment.

No-one doubts these are thorny issues that need addressing. There is a reason why regulators are striving to evolve labelling, disclosure and rating regimes to prevent investors buying funds that fail to meet their expectations.

But it is reasonable to ask whether the level of attention greenwashing attracts is commensurate with the size of the problem. If we conclude that most of what we read and see is really about the fear of greenwashing, rather than concrete evidence of it, the answer must be ‘no’.

Why, then, is there such scrutiny? Is it simply because so much regulatory effort goes into reducing the risk of greenwashing? Or does it also reflect increasingly widespread scepticism around asset managers’ sustainability claims?

Holding up a mirror

If sunlight is the best disinfectant, asset managers should accept that as an industry, their record on transparency leaves much to be desired. That has bred distrust. With sustainability becoming a defining feature of the investment landscape, asset managers should take the opportunity to commit to being more open as a core part of their efforts to effect meaningful change.

Providing more complete information to investors should, of course, be one part of this. But addressing the clear mismatch between responsible asset managers and their investee companies should be another.

Today, a basic demand of most sustainability-focused asset managers is that investee companies are open and clear about their ESG strategies and policies. On the whole, most are: They are under pressure from clients and other stakeholders to disclose their carbon emissions, among other things, and recognise the need to show progress. This helps facilitate engagement.

But there is an asymmetry here that risks limiting further advancement. If, for instance, companies fail to set ambitious enough targets or refuse to embed ESG elements into remuneration policies, asset managers can vote against management (or even divest).

The problem is that, generally speaking, asset managers do not appear to hold themselves to the same standard. No equivalent sanction is applied for missing targets. This is problematic when responsible investors are often themselves major organisations with large workforces and significant carbon footprints.

Time for change

Most asset managers have made pledges and commitments to reduce carbon emissions and achieve other sustainability ambitions. For instance, more than 300 organisations are signatories to the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative (NZAMI), which aims to galvanise the industry to commit to a goal of net zero.

The commitment to NZAMI requires asset managers to report on their actions and update their targets regularly. It also ensures that stewardship is comprehensively implemented. But no initiative in isolation can eliminate the discrepancy between asset managers and their investee companies. They may not admit it, but company executives might well wonder why they face revolts against their remuneration packages while those of their shareholders remain relatively risk-free.                                                                                

It is partly for this reason that AXA IM now includes ESG targets in the remuneration of our senior executives. We believe that aligning compensation with ESG ambitions not only demonstrates a commitment to achieving them, but it also sends a message to investee companies that asset managers are on a similar journey, with shared incentives to deliver meaningful change.

This, to our minds, is a powerful way to enhance dialogue with companies. But it would have an exponentially larger impact if more asset managers would transparently link executive pay to their own ESG policies. Doing so would not only scale up efforts to make and accelerate progress, but help limit backsliding on commitments to ESG targets. After all, excuses will ring hollow if asset managers can point to their own obligations and progress as evidence that ambitious goals can be set and met – or punished if missed.

No margin for error

In many ways, it comes back to transparency. If asset managers are clear about their own ambitions to achieve specific metrics and report regularly on their progress, it can only improve the quality of their engagement. It also removes a reason for investee companies not to strain every sinew to meet key metrics.

This is particularly important now because it has become alarmingly clear how precarious a situation the world is in. The recent landmark report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change1  (IPCC) showed in stark detail how greenhouse gases are changing the planet, with its current warming trajectory set to exceed the 1.5˚Celsius temperature threshold set in the Paris Agreement.

From a corporate perspective, the positive news is that most companies, despite soaring inflation and significant market volatility, have not jettisoned ESG initiatives. The ESG backlash in the US has been an unwelcome development, but we can see that engagement more broadly, allied with regulation, is having a positive influence on corporate behaviour.

However, it is increasingly apparent that far more needs to be done and quickly. In response to the IPCC report, UN secretary general António Guterres said: “Our world needs climate action on all fronts: Everything, everywhere, all at once.” Both as businesses and as stewards of capital, asset managers should heed his words and do everything they can to help avert a climate catastrophe.


Related Articles


New experts, new perspectives: Macroeconomics, climate and biodiversity

  • by Chris Iggo
  • 18 April 2023 (7 min read)

Why investing in biodiversity means looking at the solutions, not just the problems

  • by Tom Atkinson , Ashley Keet
  • 17 April 2023 (5 min read)

Why, and how, investors should integrate biodiversity into fixed income portfolios

  • by Bruno Bamberger , Liudmila Strakodonskaya
  • 17 April 2023 (5 min read)


    This website is published by AXA Investment Managers Asia Limited (“AXA IM HK”), an entity licensed by the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong (“SFC”), for general circulation and informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment research or financial analysis relating to transactions in financial instruments, nor does it constitute on the part of AXA Investment Managers or its affiliated companies an offer to buy, sell or enter into any transactions in respect of any investments, products or services, and should not be considered as solicitation or investment, legal, tax or any other advice, a recommendation for an investment strategy or a personalised recommendation to buy or sell securities under any applicable law or regulation. It has been prepared without taking into account the specific personal circumstances, investment objectives, financial situation, investment knowledge or particular needs of any particular person and may be subject to change at any time without notice. Offering may be made only on the basis of the information disclosed in the relevant offering documents. Please consult independent financial or other professional advisers if you are unsure about any information contained herein.

    Due to its simplification, this publication is partial and opinions, estimates and forecasts herein are subjective and subject to change without notice. There is no guarantee such opinions, estimates and forecasts made will come to pass. Actual results of operations and achievements may differ materially. Data, figures, declarations, analysis, predictions and other information in this publication is provided based on our state of knowledge at the time of creation of this publication. Information herein may be obtained from sources believed to be reliable. AXA IM HK has reasonable belief that such information is accurate, complete and up-to-date. To the maximum extent permitted by law, AXA IM HK, its affiliates, directors, officers or employees take no responsibility for the data provided by third party, including the accuracy of such data. This material does not contain sufficient information to support an investment decision. References to companies (if any) are for illustrative purposes only and should not be viewed as investment recommendations or solicitations.

    All investment involves risk, including the loss of capital. The value of investments and the income from them can fluctuate and that past performance is no guarantee of future returns, investors may not get back the amount originally invested. Investors should not make any investment decision based on this material alone. 

    Some of the services listed on this Website may not be available for offer to retail investors.

    This Website has not been reviewed by the SFC. © 2023 AXA Investment Managers. All rights reserved.