Invest for good 

The alleged return gap is demonstrably not true and now with a proliferation of data, easily proven to be untrue. When you next hear someone claim that returns from responsible investing are lower, you are literally hearing a blast from the past. Overseas, in larger markets that have moved more readily into the acceptance of RI as a legitimate investor choice, the conversation has moved on. Five or ten years ago, the question being asked was “Will Responsible Investing cost me return?”. This quickly moved on to an acceptance that RI returns are certainly no worse than traditional investing. Now the questions being asked are “How much additional return can I get from RI investing?” and “Is responsible investing an investible factor?”

Sugar may become a negative value screen for the responsible investment portfolios of the future, according to Martin Currie Australia.

Speaking in Sydney yesterday, Martin Currie Australia portfolio manager Will Baylis said while sugar was not being negatively screened in their income strategies at present, it could escalate as an issue in years to come.

“I would suspect, down the track, that sugar may well become quite topical,” Mr Baylis said.

In March 2017 AMP Capital released a report that found sugar was emerging as an investment risk for the global food and beverage industry.

‘ESG integration’ is only one of many factors that characterise responsible investment, according to investment manager Australian Ethical.

Aside from environmental, social and governance (ESG) integration, a number of other factors must be considered for responsible investment to truly live up to its name, according to Australian Ethical head of ethics Stuart Palmer.

Mr Palmer outlined a number of other "dimensions" to responsible investment, including negative screening, positive screening, the influence investors had on companies and governments, and the impact of the UN's 17 sustainable development goals.