評論
打印
But it does illustrate that environmental leadership is compatible with good returns.
但它確實說明注重環境問題和高效益并不矛盾。
So if the returns are the same or better and the planet benefits, wouldn't this be the norm?
如果效益相同或更好，而我們的星球還能受益，難道這不應該成為常規嗎？
Are investors, particularly institutional investors,engaged?
那么投資者們，尤其是機構投資者們，參與進來了嗎？
Well, some are,
有些已經參與進來了，
and a few are really at the vanguard.
有幾個還是先鋒。
Hesta is a retirement fund for health.
是澳大利亞的一家退休基金，
and community services employees in Australia,
服務于醫療和社區服務人員。他們的資產為220億。
They believe that ESG has the potential to impact risks and returns,
他們相信ESG有潛力影響風險和回報，
so incorporating it into the investment process is core to their duty to act in the best interest of fund members,
所以他們把將ESG納入投資過程作為他們的核心職責，以達到為基金成員謀取最佳利益的目的。
core to their duty.
他們的核心職責！
You gotta love the Aussies, right?
澳大利亞人是不是很可愛？
CalPERS is another example. CalPERS CalPERS is the pension fund CalPERS for public employees in California,
是另一個例子。是加州公務員的養老基金，
they are the second largest in the U.S.
排在美國第二大，
and the sixth largest in the world.
世界第六大。
Now, they're moving toward 100 percent sustainable investment by systematically integrated ESG across the entire fund.
現在，他們正朝著 100%可持續性投資的方向轉變，他們要通過系統地將ESG整合到整個基金中來實現。
Why? They believe it's critical to superior long-term returns, full stop.
為什么呢？他們相信這是獲得長期高效益的關鍵。就這樣。
In their own words, long-term value creation requires the effective management of three forms of capital:
用他們自己的話來說： 創造長期的價值，需要有效地管理三種形式的資本：
financial, human, and physical.
財務,人力和物理。
This is why we are concerned with ESG.
這就是我們為什么關心ESG。
Now, I do speak to a lot of investors
我跟很多投資者交談過，
as part of my job,
因為這是我工作的一部分。
and not all of them see it this way.
并不是所有人都這樣看問題。
Often I hear, We are required to maximize returns,
我經常聽到的是， 我們需要將回報最大化，
so we don't do that here,
所以我們這兒不做這些。
or, We don't want to use the portfolio
或者，我們不想用公司的投資組合
to make policy statements.
做政策方面的聲明。
The one that just really gets under my skin is,
最讓我受不了的是，
If you want to do something about that,
如果你想在這方面做點兒什么，
just make money, give the profits to charities.
就去賺錢，然后把收益捐給慈善機構。
It's eyes rolling, eyes rolling.
氣得我直翻白眼。
I mean, let me clarify something right here.
讓我來澄清一下我的意思。
Companies and investors are not
公司和投資者都不能
singularly responsible for the fate of the planet.
靠他們單獨的力量來負責地球的命運。
They don't have indefinite social obligations,
他們沒有無限的社會義務，
and prudent investing and finance theory aren't subordinate to sustainability.
而且審慎的投資和金融理論并不是要讓位給可持續性，
They're compatible.
他們是相容的。
So I'm not talking about tradeoffs here.
所以我不是說要作某種犧牲。
But institutional investors are the x-factor in sustainability.
但機構投資者是可持續發展中最重要的因素。
Why do they hold the key?
他們為什么這么關鍵呢？
