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.
世界正在變化 一些深刻的變化 我擔心的是投資者 沒有注意到 世界變化的一些最強勁驅動力 特別是永續發展 提到永續,我想真正有吸引力的是 環境和社會話題 以及政府間的合作這樣的問題 我想忽視這些問題是草率的做法 因為忽視這些就會危害 未來長期的收益 有些事情會讓你吃驚: 真正影響永續的權力平衡 在於機構性投資者 大投資家喜歡養老基金 基金會和捐贈基金 我相信永續性投資 並沒有你想得那麼複雜 比你相信的要更容易操作 也比我們想像得要更重要
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)
我來提醒一下大家 那些我們已經知道的東西 我們有一個不斷增長和老化的人口數量 現在世界上有 70 億人口 本世紀末將 達到 100 億 我們消耗天然資源 其速度比自然資源的補充要快 引起氣候變化的二氧化碳排放量 在持續增加 現在很明顯 這些都是環境和社會問題 但那還不是全部 這還是經濟問題 所以這些問題也 於風險和回報有關 它們真的很複雜 看起來也真的很遙遠 所以沒甚麼吸引力讓人們去做: 把我們頭埋在沙子裡,不想這件事 如果可能,不要這麼做 不要在家裡做這個 (笑聲)
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.
不過這禁不住讓我想 今天的投資原理 是否適合將來的目標 我們知道投資者 如果他們想知道一家公司是否值得投資 他們就去看財務資料 如銷售增長、 現金流量、 市場份額 市場估價這些指標 — — 你知道這些是很誘人的東西 這些東西是當然是最基本的 但這還不夠 投資者還應看看性能指標 我們稱之為 ESG: 環境 (E)、 社會 (S) 和治理 (G) 環境包括能源消耗 水的供應、廢品和污染 更有效地利用資源 社會包括人力資本 像員工敬業程度 和創新能力這些方面 以及供應鏈的管理 勞動權利和人權 以及有董事會和投資者對公司 進行大方向的管理 看,我說了這些是很吸引人的東西 但 ESG 是來衡量永續的 將永續投資於 ESG 因素相結合 與投資過程中的金融因素相結合 它意味著減少未來風險 通過對人類和地球危害的最小化 這就意味著给用户提供資本 讓他們帶來有效益和 可永續的成果
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.
如果今天永續影響著財政 這就表明更多的可能性 私營企业在關注嗎? 嗯,很酷的是大多數 CEO 都關注這件事 他們開始考慮永續 因為它不僅重要 而且是企業成功的關鍵 大約 80% 的全球 CEO 把永續看成是投資收益的根本 可以在各自行業體現競爭的優勢 可以在各自行業體現競爭的優勢 他們中 93% 把 ESG 看做是未來的方向 或對他們生意的未來非常重要的部份 所以這些 CEO 的認識是很清晰的 在永續事業上有巨大的潛在機遇
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.
那麼這些公司實際上如何利用 ESG 努力帶來他們生意上的成果呢? 有一個例子離我們的心很近很親切 在 2012 年道富銀行把 54 個應用程式 移入到雲環境中 我們撤回了另外 85 個 我們虛擬了我們的系統運行環境 我們完成了許多自動化專案 現在這些倡議創造了 更多的移動工作場所 它們減少了我們的辦公場所 每年的運營成本一共 可以節省 2300 萬美元 還可以避免廢氣排放 那 100 萬噸的二氧化碳量 就相當於讓 21,000 輛汽車 離開公路 很棒,對吧? 另一個例子是 Pentair Pentair 是美國的一個工業集團 大約 10 年前 他們賣掉了他們核心的電動工具業務 把收益投入到跟水有關的業務 那可是一個很大的賭注 他們為什麼那麼做? 嗯,跟家居裝修迷們道個歉 水資源的利潤增長要比電動工具快 這家公司很有眼光 在他們所說的"新新世界"上 因為 40 億的中產階層 對糧食、能源和水質量有要求
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.
現在你可能會問自己 這些只是個別的例子? 我的意思是 拜託,真的嗎? 那些考慮永續的公司 真的有很好的效益嗎? 答案可能會令你吃驚 是肯定的 資料顯示,具有好 ESG 性能的股票 和其他的股票沒有差別 藍色線條 我們看到的是 MSCI 的情況 它是大公司 來自世界各地成熟的 股票市場的一個參數 金色線條,我們看到的是 具有最好 ESG 性能的一個子參數 三年多裡,沒有性能上的失衡 那已經夠好了,對吧? 我們要的更多,我要的更多 在某些情況下 ESG 可能有 超常的表現 藍色線條 我們看到的是 500 個全球最大的公司的性能指標 而黃金線條,我們看到公司的 執行氣候變化政策 和風險管理最好的一個子參數 現在已經八年過去了 他們已經優於三分之二左右 是的,這是相關性 並不是因果關係 但它確實說明這樣的環境領導力 有相當好的收益
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."
所以如果收益相同或更好 而且給地球帶來好處 為甚麼不把這個當成標準呢? 投資者們,尤其是機構投資者 參與進來了嗎? 嗯,有些吧 有幾個真的是先鋒 比如 Hesta Hesta 是一個 澳大利亞的醫療和 社區服務僱員的退休基金 有 220 億 [美元]的資產 他們相信 ESG 所具有的潛力 去影響風險和收益 所以將其納入投資中 是他們職責的核心 基金成員的最佳利益行事 他們的職責的核心 現在你喜歡上 Aussies 了,對吧? CalPERS 是另一個例子 CalPERS 是一個 加州公務員的養恤基金 有 2440 億[美元]的資產 他們的資產在美國第二大 世界第六大 現在他們 100% 地轉向 永續投資 通過系統地把 ESG 整合到整個基金 為什麼呢?他們相信這是關鍵 超級的長期回報,就是這樣 用他們自己的話來說 “長期價值的創造 需要有效的管理 三種形式的資本: 財力、 人力和物力 這是我們為什麼關心 ESG”
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.
我和很多投資者交流過 這成為我工作的一部分 但不是所有的人這麼看 經常聽到 “我們都需要最大限度的收益 所以我們這裡不這麼做” 或者,“我們不想使用這個方法 作為我們的營業政策” 做讓我反感的一個是 “如果你想要做甚麼的話 就去努力賺錢,然後 把所有收益都捐給慈善機構” 我只能翻白眼了
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.
我的意思是,讓我澄清一下 公司和投資者都不是 唯一對地球的命運負責的人 他們沒有無限期的社會義務 和審慎的投資和金融理論 他們不從屬輿永續 他們是和永續相容的 所以我不是在這裡 談論他們該如何讓步的 但機構投資者 是在永續發展中的重要因素 他們為什麼掌握著這個權利? 答案很簡單 是的,他們有很多錢 (笑聲) 很多很多錢 真的很多啊 全球證券市場是價值 55 兆美元 全球債券市場價值 78 兆美元 這加起來133 兆美元 是美國 GDP 的八倍半 這是世界最大的經濟體 這就是一些重火力
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?
所以我們需要重新考慮 這些緊迫的挑戰 像新鮮的水源,清潔的空氣 供 100 億人享用 如果機構投資者 把 ESG 整合到投資裡面 如果他們用那火力 去分配更多他們的資本 到刻苦工作 去解決這些挑戰的公司 或至少不加重他們的負擔呢? 如果我們工作、儲蓄和投資 僅僅是為了我們退休的地方 比現在更艱難、更沒安全感? 如果沒有足夠的、清潔的 空氣和新鮮的水怎麼辦?
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?"]
現在的一個問題是 如果威脅永續發展的這些事情 是被誇大,強調了,並不是緊急的 良性消費者那些事 或是生活方式的選擇呢? 嗯約翰 · 甘迺迪總統說 下面的話可以用在這裡: “一些行動是需要風險和代價的 但是他們不如為了舒適的不作為 更具有風險和需要代價。” 我可以理解在永續發展中會有一些風險 但因為這是基於廣泛的科學共識之上的 它就不是完全錯誤的 它出錯的幾率 比我們房子被燒幾率小 或者比我們遭遇車禍的幾率小 如果你不是生活在波士頓的話(笑聲) 我想說的是我們買保險 來保護我們的財政 以防那些事情發生,對吧? 通過給永續投資 我們在做兩件事 我們要創建保險 為我們的星球,我們的經濟降低風險 同時在短期內 我們不至於犧牲它的性能 [漫畫的人:"如果它是一個大騙局,我們創造了更好的世界卻沒有回報怎麼辦?"]
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."
好的,你們喜歡它,我也喜歡它 (笑聲) 我喜歡它,因為它諷刺 在氣候變化問題的雙方 我打賭你不能猜我在哪一邊 但我真的很喜歡它 是它讓我想起馬克 · 吐溫說 就是“要為未來做計劃 因為那是你 要渡過餘生的地方。”
Thank you.
謝謝
(Applause)
(掌聲)