For the past three years, dozens of nations have gathered each July to present their national plans to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
At the latest of these UN High-Level Political Forums, governments rolled out impressive blueprints — almost none of which included realistic budgets or revenue sources.
Estimates of the development investment gap are typically in the trillions of US dollars, while official development assistance is hovering at about US$140 billion per year.
One effective way to help close this funding gap is to catalyze substantial investment from the private sector.
The private sector has long played an integral role in poverty reduction and economic development — a role that extends well beyond finance.
Private companies create 90 percent of jobs (the most effective way to lift people out of poverty) in the developing world and facilitate improved efficiency, technological adoption and innovation, and the distribution of goods and services.
Private-sector financing of the SDGs would occur via established institutional investors, including pension funds, sovereign-wealth funds and insurers, which together represent trillions of US dollars of “patient capital.”
Yet, as it stands, institutional investors allocate only a small share of assets to so-called impact investing, while channeling huge sums toward a relatively small number of public companies.
The key to achieving the SDGs is therefore to impel public companies — especially the large firms that receive the majority of institutional investment — to account for environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria relevant to the SDGs in their decisionmaking.
This approach recognizes the need to adopt a long-term perspective when implementing the SDGs, even as we respond to their urgency.
The good news is that ESG-anchored investing is already on the rise, with most of the major institutional investors integrating ESG factors into their investment strategies, at least to some extent.
The 2016 Global Sustainable Investment Review reported that US$22.89 trillion of assets were “being professionally managed under responsible investment strategies” worldwide, up 25 percent from 2014.
Europe accounted for US$12 trillion and the US total was US$8.7 trillion, though the highest growth rates were in Japan and Oceania.
Viewing ESG awareness as a way to mitigate risk and even as a source of upside opportunities, institutional investors are seeking to bring this approach into their mainstream activities.
This bodes well for the SDGs, but there are still important challenges to overcome, beginning with an inadequate understanding of the link between ESG standards and the SDGs.
Only a few investors and businesses are currently using SDGs as the basis for sustainability-focused strategies, but the only way to boost shareholder value and contribute to meeting the SDGs is for companies and investors to ensure, in advance, that they focus on ESG standards that are both material to their industry or business and useful to advance the SDGs.
In a recent paper, Gianni Betti, Costanza Consolandi, and Robert Eccles mapped the relevant ESG issues identified by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board in 79 industries in 10 sectors, grouped by SDGs.
Companies that use this kind of mapping will understand to which SDGs they would be contributing — down to the target level — by performing well on their chosen ESG criteria.
By reviewing data on companies’ ESG performance, investors can see how their funds are contributing to achieving the SDGs.
Based on this information, they might decide to reallocate their resources or to engage with better-performing companies.
In 2016, Mozaffar Khan, George Serafeim and Aaron Yoon created portfolios of companies that were performing well and poorly on the material issues in their industry.
The firms with the highest annualized active return of 4.8 percent were performing well on the material issues and poorly on the immaterial issues.
Those with the lowest annualized active return of minus-2.2 percent were performing poorly on both, but critically, the divergences did not start to appear until after seven to eight years.
This demonstrates that executives must balance attention to short-term performance with a long-term perspective.
That includes an understanding of which ESG issues will be material to their industry in the future and which SDG efforts in those areas they might serve to advance.
Investors could consider taking a long-term view with regard to the financial performance of their ESG-based portfolios.
They can expect periodic reports on ESG performance and its contribution to the relevant SDGs — just as they receive periodic reports on financial performance — to monitor progress and make adjustments if needed.
In many ways, private firms are already contributing to the SDGs, but they are doing so in an ad hoc manner that is not adequately labeled or targeted.
By creating smart, comprehensive and clearly defined strategies, private companies can not only get credit for their efforts; they can also help governments to establish realistic budgets and clear financing plans for the SDGs.
Mahmoud Mohieldin is senior vice president at the World Bank Group and Svetlana Klimenko is the group’s lead financial management specialist.
Copyright Project Syndicate
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS