UN member states in 2015 came together and committed to achieving a comprehensive and universal set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) spanning all dimensions of economic and social development.
Investment will be indispensable to achieving the SDGs, which aim to eliminate poverty, end hunger, combat climate change, build resilient infrastructure, and promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth.
Yet, three years on, we still have not done nearly enough to leverage our financial systems in pursuit of the SDGs.
The UN, in coordination with almost 60 agencies and international institutions, recently published an assessment of the world’s progress toward changing financing, policies and regulations to achieve the SDGs.
It finds that, despite positive momentum on sustainable investment, the goals will not be met unless we shift the entire financial system toward long-term investment horizons, and make sustainability a central concern. Without a long-term perspective, certain risks, especially those associated with climate change, will not be priced into private investment decisions.
Global financial flows are vast, yet the quality of investment matters. Short-term investment patterns are driving capital-market and exchange-rate volatility, and significantly raising the costs and risks of sustainable investment, particularly for developing countries.
If we create incentives to steer the flow of financing toward long-term infrastructure projects such as bridges, roads, and water and sewage systems, we would be making a major contribution to both development and stability.
Those investment projects must also be more environmentally and socially sustainable. Because today’s investments, particularly in energy systems, will lock in development paths for decades to come, more must be done to ensure that investments now, and in the future, do not undermine our efforts to address climate change. Moreover, as with all economic policies, gender equality needs to become a central consideration.
Transforming finance will not be easy. Today’s capital markets are highly oriented toward short-termism, as evidenced by capital-flow volatility and the short holding period of stocks in some developed markets, which has fallen from an average of eight years in the 1960s to eight months today. While long-term institutional investors hold about US$80 trillion in assets, with about half of these representing long-term liabilities, nearly 75 percent are held in liquid instruments, whereas just 3 percent are in infrastructure.
The same tendency is prevalent in the real economy. In 2016, S&P 500 companies spent more than 100 percent of their earnings on dividends and share buybacks, which boost stock prices in the short run, rather than raising long-term value through investment.
A McKinsey Global Institute survey in February last year found that 87 percent of corporate executives and directors feel “pressured to demonstrate strong financial performance within two years or less,” while 65 percent say that “short-term pressure has increased over the past five years.” Moreover, 55 percent said they would delay investments in projects with positive returns to hit quarterly balance-sheet targets.
Shifting investors from short-termism toward long-term thinking is a prerequisite for achieving all of our economic, social and environmental goals, but the private sector will not make this transition by itself. Policymakers must step in and provide leadership.
Without well-considered and well-enforced rules set by governments, markets do not operate fairly and in the public interest. Aside from public investment, this is one of the state’s most essential functions.
Specifically, transforming global finance will require changes in prudential regulations, capital requirements, investment-firm culture and executive compensation, which will require new and more appropriate longer-term benchmarks. Reforms to accounting practices, especially for illiquid investments, will also be necessary, for example, to reduce the short-term bias introduced by mark-to-market accounting.
Institutional investors must adopt a broader interpretation of fiduciary duty, which should focus on the long term and incorporate all factors that have a material impact on returns, be they financial, environmental, social or governance-related.
With 12 years to go, it might seem like the world has plenty of time to make progress toward the SDGs, but the UN’s past experiences with goal-oriented initiatives show that it is important to take decisive action early on in the process.
Making matters worse, escalating geopolitical and trade tensions threaten to set us back, rather than take us forward. Such disagreements must not stand in the way of reaching the SDGs and building a sustainable future.
Above all, that future needs to be financed. Although many public and private institutions at various levels of international finance have already started to change, the overall financial system has yet to experience the sort of transformation that is needed. We have all agreed on what we need to do — now we must do it.
Liu Zhenmin (劉振民) is undersecretary-general for UN economic and social affairs.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
During the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum’s third leadership summit on Aug. 31, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun said that the US wants to partner with the other members of the Quadrilaterial Security Dialogue — Australia, India and Japan — to establish an organization similar to NATO, to “respond to ... any potential challenge from China.” He said that the US’ purpose is to work with these nations and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to “create a critical mass around the shared values and interest of those parties,” and possibly attract more countries to establish an alliance comparable to
On August 24, 2020, the US Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, made an important statement: “The Pentagon is Prepared for China.” Going forward, how might the Department of Defense team up with Taiwan to make itself even more prepared? No American wants to deter the next war by a paper-thin margin, and no one appreciates the value of strategic overmatch more than the war planners at the Pentagon. When the stakes are this high, you can bet they want to be super ready. In recent months, we have witnessed a veritable flood of high-level statements from US government leaders on
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new