Green Funds in a Gray Area

C. Shapiro
{"title":"Green Funds in a Gray Area","authors":"C. Shapiro","doi":"10.52214/cjel.v48i2.11734","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \nEnvironmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) funds face tremendous skepticism regarding their impact relative to investor perceptions. In fact, several figures, including media commentators and asset management leaders, have sounded the alarm on ESG investing. They believe investors, especially retail investors, are being misled by funds’ names and largely unhelpful disclosures, and that some fund managers are exaggerating their ESG practices in the name of attracting investors’ money. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has documented evidence of misleading statements regarding ESG investing processes and has brought enforcement actions against companies for making false claims in their disclosures. In an effort to address the lack of standardization and clarity in the ESG fund industry, the SEC proposed two rules in May 2022 that would change the naming and disclosure requirements for ESG funds. \nTo examine how ESG funds are naming themselves and disclosing key ESG information, this Note aggregates data collected from the twenty largest ESG mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Based on an analysis of this data—which simulates an investor’s experience attempting to identify which ESG funds best align with their objectives—this Note derives quantitative and qualitative takeaways. The main conclusion is that ESG fund names are often vague and misleading, and neither their names nor their accompanying disclosures describe the funds’ investment strategies in a manner retail investors can meaningfully understand and use to make fully informed investment decisions. This Note calls this phenomenon the “ESG fund labeling problem.” \n \n \n \nIn addition to analyzing the ESG fund labeling problem and its impact on retail investors, this Note considers whether the SEC’s two proposed rules from May 2022 will be successful in abating the ESG fund labeling problem. Ultimately, this Note concludes that the proposed rules fall short of meeting investors’ needs in key areas and proposes modifications the SEC can employ to further resolve the ESG fund labeling problem and reduce investor confusion. \n \n \n \n \n \n","PeriodicalId":246399,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Environmental Law","volume":"115 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Journal of Environmental Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjel.v48i2.11734","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) funds face tremendous skepticism regarding their impact relative to investor perceptions. In fact, several figures, including media commentators and asset management leaders, have sounded the alarm on ESG investing. They believe investors, especially retail investors, are being misled by funds’ names and largely unhelpful disclosures, and that some fund managers are exaggerating their ESG practices in the name of attracting investors’ money. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has documented evidence of misleading statements regarding ESG investing processes and has brought enforcement actions against companies for making false claims in their disclosures. In an effort to address the lack of standardization and clarity in the ESG fund industry, the SEC proposed two rules in May 2022 that would change the naming and disclosure requirements for ESG funds. To examine how ESG funds are naming themselves and disclosing key ESG information, this Note aggregates data collected from the twenty largest ESG mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Based on an analysis of this data—which simulates an investor’s experience attempting to identify which ESG funds best align with their objectives—this Note derives quantitative and qualitative takeaways. The main conclusion is that ESG fund names are often vague and misleading, and neither their names nor their accompanying disclosures describe the funds’ investment strategies in a manner retail investors can meaningfully understand and use to make fully informed investment decisions. This Note calls this phenomenon the “ESG fund labeling problem.” In addition to analyzing the ESG fund labeling problem and its impact on retail investors, this Note considers whether the SEC’s two proposed rules from May 2022 will be successful in abating the ESG fund labeling problem. Ultimately, this Note concludes that the proposed rules fall short of meeting investors’ needs in key areas and proposes modifications the SEC can employ to further resolve the ESG fund labeling problem and reduce investor confusion.
灰色地带的绿色基金
相对于投资者的看法,环境、社会和治理(ESG)基金面临着巨大的质疑。事实上,包括媒体评论员和资产管理领袖在内的多位人士都对ESG投资敲响了警钟。他们认为,投资者(尤其是散户投资者)被基金的名称和基本上毫无帮助的披露所误导,一些基金经理以吸引投资者资金的名义夸大了他们的ESG实践。美国证券交易委员会(SEC)记录了有关ESG投资流程的误导性陈述的证据,并对在披露中做出虚假声明的公司采取了执法行动。为了解决ESG基金行业缺乏标准化和透明度的问题,美国证券交易委员会于2022年5月提出了两条规则,将改变ESG基金的命名和披露要求。为了研究ESG基金如何命名自己和披露关键的ESG信息,本文汇总了从20家最大的ESG共同基金和交易所交易基金(etf)收集的数据。基于对这些数据的分析(模拟投资者试图确定哪些ESG基金最符合其目标的经验),本文得出了定量和定性的结论。主要结论是,ESG基金的名称往往含糊不清,具有误导性,它们的名称和随附的信息披露都没有以散户投资者能够理解和利用的方式描述基金的投资策略,从而做出充分知情的投资决策。本文将这种现象称为“ESG基金标签问题”。除了分析ESG基金标签问题及其对散户投资者的影响外,本文还考虑了美国证券交易委员会从2022年5月起提出的两项拟议规则是否能成功缓解ESG基金标签问题。最后,本文得出结论,拟议规则未能满足投资者在关键领域的需求,并提出了SEC可以采用的修改建议,以进一步解决ESG基金标签问题,减少投资者的困惑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信