The world is changing in some really profound ways, and I worry that investors aren't paying enough attention to some of the biggest drivers of change, especially when it comes to sustainability. And by sustainability, I mean the really juicy things, like environmental and social issues and corporate governance. I think it's reckless to ignore these things, because doing so can jeopardize future long-term returns. And here's something that may surprise you: the balance of power to really influence sustainability rests with institutional investors, the large investors like pension funds, foundations and endowments. I believe that sustainable investing is less complicated than you think, better-performing than you believe, and more important than we can imagine.
这世界正在发生 某些翻天覆地的变化, 而我担心的是投资者们 并没有充分注意到 那些引起这些变化的最主要的驱动因素, 尤其是在可持续性发展方面。 说到可持续发展, 我指的是那些最有意思的东西, 例如环境问题和社会问题, 还有公司的管理。 我觉得这些问题是不容忽视的, 因为忽视它们很可能会危害到 未来的长期回报。 下面我要说的可能会让你感到惊讶: 最能影响可持续性的权力平衡 掌握在机构投资者的手中, 那些大型投资者,比如养老基金, 基金会和捐赠基金。 我相信可持续性的投资 没有你想的那么复杂, 比你预计的回报率还高, 也比我们想像得更重要。
Let me remind you what we already know. We have a population that's both growing and aging; we have seven billion souls today heading to 10 billion at the end of the century; we consume natural resources faster than they can be replenished; and the emissions that are mainly responsible for climate change just keep increasing. Now clearly, these are environmental and social issues, but that's not all. They're economic issues, and that makes them relevant to risk and return. And they are really complex and they can seem really far off, that the temptation may be to do this: bury our heads in the sand and not think about it. Resist this, if you can. Don't do this at home. (Laughter)
先来回顾一下我们已知的一些事情: 世界人口正在不断增长和老龄化, 现在有 70 亿人, 到了21世纪末 将逼近100亿; 我们消耗天然资源的速度 快于它们能重新生成的速度; 而废气排放总在不断地增加, 这是造成气候变化的主要原因。 显然,这里有环境问题和社会问题, 但这还不是全部, 这里还有经济问题, 所以就与 风险和投资回报息息相关。 这些问题确实相当复杂, 又似乎离我们很遥远, 这就诱使我们这样做: 把头埋进沙子里而不去想这件事。 千万不要在家里做这个。 (笑声)
But it makes me wonder if the investment rules of today are fit for purpose tomorrow. We know that investors, when they look at a company and decide whether to invest, they look at financial data, metrics like sales growth, cash flow, market share, valuation -- you know, the really sexy stuff. And these things are fundamental, of course, but they're not enough. Investors should also look at performance metrics in what we call ESG: environment, social and governance. Environment includes energy consumption, water availability, waste and pollution, just making efficient uses of resources. Social includes human capital, things like employee engagement and innovation capacity, as well as supply chain management and labor rights and human rights. And governance relates to the oversight of companies by their boards and investors. See, I told you this is the really juicy stuff. But ESG is the measure of sustainability, and sustainable investing incorporates ESG factors with financial factors into the investment process. It means limiting future risk by minimizing harm to people and planet, and it means providing capital to users who deploy it towards productive and sustainable outcomes.
但同时我也在想 当前的投资规则是否 真的适用于将来。 我们知道当投资者们 观察一家公司并决定是否进行投资时, 他们会关注那些财务数据, 例如销售增长、 现金流量、 市场份额以及资产估值等指标, 就是那些很“性感”的东西。 这些东西当然是最基本的, 但还不够, 投资者们还应关注另一方面的绩效指标, 就是我们称为ESG的方面: (E)环境、 (S)社会和(G)管理 环境包括能源消耗、 水的供应、 垃圾和污染, 指的是对资源的有效使用。 社会包括人力资本, 比如员工的积极性 和创新能力, 以及供应链管理, 劳动权和人权。 而管理则代表 董事会和投资人对公司的监督。 瞧,我说过这是真正有意思的东西。 ESG 是用来衡量可持续性的, 而可持续性投资应当把ESG因素 与金融因素融合到投资过程中去。 这意味着要通过降低对人和地球的危害, 来降低未来的风险。 这也意味着向用户提供资本 使他们用于有益 而且具有可持续性的成果。
So if sustainability matters financially today, and all signs indicate more tomorrow, is the private sector paying attention? Well, the really cool thing is that most CEOs are. They started to see sustainability not just as important but crucial to business success. About 80 percent of global CEOs see sustainability as the root to growth in innovation and leading to competitive advantage in their industries. But 93 percent see ESG as the future, or as important to the future of their business. So the views of CEOs are clear. There's tremendous opportunity in sustainability.
如果可持续性影响着今天的财政, 而所有的迹象都表明 将来这种影响会更大, 那私营部门注意到了吗? 很酷的是大多数 CEO 都注意到了。 他们开始看到可持续性 不仅重要而且是业务成功的关键。 全球大约 80%的CEO 意识到可持续性是创新发展的根本, 而且能使他们在同行业中具有竞争优势。 93%认为ESG是未来的发展趋势, 或者对未来业务发展很重要。 所以CEO们的意见很明确了, 就是在可持续发展方面有巨大的机会。 那公司实际上要如何利用 ESG
So how are companies actually leveraging ESG to drive hard business results? One example is near and dear to our hearts. In 2012, State Street migrated 54 applications to the cloud environment, and we retired another 85. We virtualized our operating system environments, and we completed numerous automation projects. Now these initiatives create a more mobile workplace, and they reduce our real estate footprint, and they yield savings of 23 million dollars in operating costs annually, and avoid the emissions of a 100,000 metric tons of carbon. That's the equivalent of taking 21,000 cars off the road. So awesome, right? Another example is Pentair. Pentair is a U.S. industrial conglomerate, and about a decade ago, they sold their core power tools business and reinvested those proceeds in a water business. That's a really big bet. Why did they do that? Well, with apologies to the Home Improvement fans, there's more growth in water than in power tools, and this company has their sights set on what they call "the new New World." That's four billion middle class people demanding food, energy and water.
来提高经营效益呢? 举一个和我们最接近的例子。 2012 年,道富集团将54个应用程序 迁移到云环境中, 另外还取消了85个。 我们将操作系统环境虚拟化, 并且完成了许多自动化项目。 现在这些做法创建了更灵活的工作场所, 减少了办公用地, 每年节约了2300 万美金的营运成本, 减少了100 万吨碳的废气排放, 相当于路上少跑了21,000辆汽车。 很棒,对吧? 另一个例子是滨特尔。 滨特尔是美国的工业集团。 大约 10 年前, 他们卖掉了他们的核心电动工具业务, 并把这些收益重新投资在 水业务上。 这是一个很大的赌注。他们为什么做呢? 虽然很多人热衷于自己动手装修房子, 但是水业务比电动工具增长得更多。 这家公司将他们的目光 放在了他们所说的"新新世界"上, 就是有40 亿的中产阶层人士 需要粮食、 能源和水。
Now, you may be asking yourself, are these just isolated cases? I mean, come on, really? Do companies that take sustainability into account really do well financially? The answer that may surprise you is yes. The data shows that stocks with better ESG performance perform just as well as others. In blue, we see the MSCI World. It's an index of large companies from developed markets across the world. And in gold, we see a subset of companies rated as having the best ESG performance. Over three plus years, no performance tradeoff. So that's okay, right? We want more. I want more. In some cases, there may be outperformance from ESG. In blue, we see the performance of the 500 largest global companies, and in gold, we see a subset of companies with best practice in climate change strategy and risk management. Now over almost eight years, they've outperformed by about two thirds. So yes, this is correlation. It's not causation. But it does illustrate that environmental leadership is compatible with good returns.
现在你可能会想, 这些只是个别的例子吗? 真是这样的吗? 那些考虑到可持续发展的公司, 真的在财政效益上也发展良好吗? 可能会让你惊讶的是,答案是肯定的。 数据显示 那些 ESG方面表现良好的公司的股票 和其他公司的表现一样好。 蓝色代表的是全世界的MSCI, 它是世界各地发达市场中 大公司的一项索引。 而金色代表那些 具有ESG方面表现最佳的公司。 在三年多的时间里, 经济效益方面没有受损。 这已经很好了吧? 但我们想要更好,我想要更好。 在某些情况下, ESG可能会带来额外的收益。 蓝色代表全球500家最大的公司 的经济效益, 而金色代表那些 在气候变化战略 和风险管理方面表现最好的公司。 经过近八年的时间, 他们的经济效益已经超出大约三分之二。 虽然这里显示的是相关性 而不是因果关系, 但它确实说明注重环境问题 和高效益并不矛盾。 如果效益相同或更好,
So if the returns are the same or better and the planet benefits, wouldn't this be the norm? Are investors, particularly institutional investors, engaged? Well, some are, and a few are really at the vanguard. Hesta. Hesta is a retirement fund for health and community services employees in Australia, with assets of 22 billion [dollars]. They believe that ESG has the potential to impact risks and returns, so incorporating it into the investment process is core to their duty to act in the best interest of fund members, core to their duty. You gotta love the Aussies, right? CalPERS is another example. CalPERS is the pension fund for public employees in California, and with assets of 244 billion [dollars], they are the second largest in the U.S. and the sixth largest in the world. Now, they're moving toward 100 percent sustainable investment by systematically integrated ESG across the entire fund. Why? They believe it's critical to superior long-term returns, full stop. In their own words, "long-term value creation requires the effective management of three forms of capital: financial, human, and physical. This is why we are concerned with ESG."
而我们的星球还能受益, 难道这不应该成为常规吗? 那么投资者们,尤其是机构投资者们, 参与进来了吗? 有些已经参与进来了, 有几个还是先锋。 Hesta。 Hesta 是澳大利亚的一家退休基金, 服务于医疗和社区服务人员。 他们的资产为220亿【美元】。 他们相信ESG有潜力 影响风险和回报, 所以他们把将ESG 纳入投资过程 作为他们的核心职责, 以达到为基金成员谋取最佳利益的目的。 他们的核心职责! 澳大利亚人是不是很可爱? CalPERS 是另一个例子。 CalPERS 是加州公务员的养老基金, 资产达2440亿【美元】, 排在美国第二大, 世界第六大。 现在,他们正朝着 100% 可持续性投资的方向转变, 他们要通过系统地将ESG 整合到整个基金中来实现。 为什么呢?他们相信 这是获得长期高效益的关键。就这样。 用他们自己的话来说: "创造长期的价值, 需要有效地管理 三种形式的资本: 财务、 人力和物理。 这就是我们为什么关心ESG。“ 我跟很多投资者交谈过,
Now, I do speak to a lot of investors as part of my job, and not all of them see it this way. Often I hear, "We are required to maximize returns, so we don't do that here," or, "We don't want to use the portfolio to make policy statements." The one that just really gets under my skin is, "If you want to do something about that, just make money, give the profits to charities." It's eyes rolling, eyes rolling.
因为这是我工作的一部分。 并不是所有人都这样看问题。 我经常听到的是, "我们需要将回报最大化, 所以我们这儿不做这些。" 或者,"我们不想用公司的投资组合 做政策方面的声明"。 最让我受不了的是, "如果你想在这方面做点儿什么, 就去赚钱,然后把收益捐给慈善机构。” 气得我直翻白眼。 让我来澄清一下我的意思。
I mean, let me clarify something right here. Companies and investors are not singularly responsible for the fate of the planet. They don't have indefinite social obligations, and prudent investing and finance theory aren't subordinate to sustainability. They're compatible. So I'm not talking about tradeoffs here. But institutional investors are the x-factor in sustainability. Why do they hold the key? The answer, quite simply, is, they have the money. (Laughter) A lot of it. I mean, a really lot of it. The global stock market is worth 55 trillion dollars. The global bond market, 78 trillion. That's 133 trillion combined. That's eight and a half times the GDP of the U.S. That's the world's largest economy. That's some serious freaking firepower.
公司和投资者都不能 靠他们单独的力量来负责地球的命运。 他们没有无限的社会义务, 而且审慎的投资和金融理论 并不是要让位给可持续性, 他们是相容的。 所以我不是说要作某种牺牲。 但机构投资者 是可持续发展中最重要的因素。 他们为什么这么关键呢? 答案很简单,就是他们有钱。 (笑声) 很多钱。 真的很多。 全球证券市场价值 55万亿美元, 全球债券市场,78万亿。 这合起来就是133万亿, 是美国GDP的八倍半, 这是世界最大的经济体。 这真是一些强大到变态的经济火力。
So we can reconsider some of these pressing challenges, like fresh water, clean air, feeding 10 billion mouths, if institutional investors integrated ESG into investment. What if they used that firepower to allocate more of their capital to companies working the hardest at solving these challenges or at least not exacerbating them? What if we work and save and invest, only to find that the world we retire into is more stressed and less secure than it is now? What if there isn't enough clean air and fresh water?
所以我们可以重新考虑 一些比较紧迫的问题, 比如说新鲜的水、 清洁的空气、 喂饱100 亿张嘴, 如果机构投资者 能把ESG 综合到投资中去的话。 他们能不能利用那些火力, 将更多的资本分配到 那些最努力解决这些问题的公司, 或至少是没有使这些问题加重的公司? 如果我们工作,攒钱,投资, 而到头来退休的时候却发现那时的世界 比现在压力更大,更不安全呢? 如果那时没有足够的清洁空气 和新鲜水呢? 有一个可能的问题,
Now a fair question might be, what if all this sustainability risk stuff is exaggerated, overstated, it's not urgent, something for virtuous consumers or lifestyle choice? Well, President John F. Kennedy said something about this that is just spot on: "There are risks and costs to a program of action, but they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction." I can appreciate that there is estimation risk in this, but since this is based on widespread scientific consensus, the odds that it's not completely wrong are better than the odds that our house will burn down or we'll get in a car accident. Well, maybe not if you live in Boston. (Laughter) But my point is that we buy insurance to protect ourselves financially in case those things happen, right? So by investing sustainably we're doing two things. We're creating insurance, reducing the risk to our planet and to our economy, and at the same time, in the short term, we're not sacrificing performance. [Man in comic: "What if it's a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"]
这些所谓可持续性的风险的东西 是不是被过分夸大了? 它也许本来不是紧迫的问题, 而只是供那些善良的消费者 做生活方式上的选择的? 肯尼迪总统说过一句话, 用在这里最合适不过: "采取行动就会有风险和成本, 但长远来说要远远低于 为了舒适而不行动的风险和成本。“ 我知道这里面有估计的风险, 但是因为这些估计基于广泛的科学共识, 它并不完全错的几率, 比我们遇上房子着火 或者车祸的几率要小。 当然,除非你住在波士顿。(笑声) 但我想说的是,我们买保险 来保护自己的财产, 以防那些事情发生,对吧? 而通过可持续性投资, 我们可以达到两个目的。 我们创造了一个保险, 降低对我们的星球和经济的风险。 同时,在短期内, 我们也不牺牲效益。 【漫画中的人:"如果这是一个大骗局, 我们除了创造出一个更美好的世界, 什么也没得到呢?"】
Good, you like it. I like it too. (Laughter) I like it because it pokes fun at both sides of the climate change issue. I bet you can't guess which side I'm on. But what I really like about it is that it reminds me of something Mark Twain said, which is, "Plan for the future, because that's where you're going to spend the rest of your life."
你喜欢它吧?我也喜欢。 (笑声) 我喜欢它是因为它把 气候变化问题争论的双方都拿来开玩笑。 我打赌你猜不出我站在哪一边。 但我真正喜欢它的原因 是它让我想起马克 · 吐温说的话, "好好计划未来, 因为那是你要度过余生的地方。" 谢谢。
Thank you.
(掌声)
(Applause)