Skip to content

ESG and Sustainable Investing

One-line definition

Incorporating environmental, social, and governance factors into investment analysis and portfolio construction — a family of distinct approaches, not one technique, ranging from purely values-driven exclusions to return-focused risk integration.

Vocabulary

  • Negative screening: excluding specific industries, companies, or practices from the investable universe entirely (e.g. tobacco, weapons, thermal coal).
  • Best-in-class / positive screening: selecting the strongest ESG performers within each industry group while keeping sector weights comparable to a benchmark — unlike negative screening, this doesn't remove any sector outright.
  • ESG integration: systematically incorporating material ESG factors into standard fundamental analysis and portfolio construction alongside traditional financial metrics, without necessarily excluding anything — the most widely used approach in practice, and the one CFA Institute's curriculum centers.
  • Thematic investing: targeting a specific ESG-related theme directly (renewable energy, water scarcity, gender diversity) rather than screening or integrating across a broad universe.
  • Engagement / active ownership: using shareholder rights (proxy voting, direct dialogue with management) to influence a company's ESG-related behavior, rather than avoiding or favoring it based on current practice.
  • Impact investing: targeting measurable, beneficial social or environmental outcomes alongside financial return — the only approach here where the non-financial outcome is an explicit, measured objective rather than a lens on financial risk/return.
  • Value-based vs. values-based: value-based ESG treats ESG factors as financially material risk/return inputs (the same logic as any other fundamental factor); values-based investing screens or tilts based on an investor's own convictions independent of whether it's return-relevant. The two are often conflated but are analytically distinct motivations.

Why PMs care

"ESG" gets used as if it's one strategy, but a mandate built on negative screening, one built on ESG integration, and one built on impact investing can hold almost entirely different portfolios and have almost nothing in common except the acronym. A PM needs to know which of these a given mandate actually specifies — the implementation, benchmark construction, and even what counts as "success" differ materially across approaches. ESG integration in particular is framed by CFA Institute and most practitioners as a risk lens on standard fundamental analysis (does a governance red flag predict a future blow-up the way a leverage red flag does?) rather than a separate, competing discipline from the credit and equity analysis already covered throughout this repo.

Why this isn't implemented in src/pm

There's no universally agreed-upon formula for "ESG score" — different data providers (MSCI, Sustainalytics, Bloomberg) use different methodologies and frequently disagree on the same company, and building a genuinely defensible scoring model requires licensed data this repo doesn't have access to. What is codeable — screening a universe against a rule (include/exclude by sector, by a numeric threshold) — is just filtering, not new financial math, so it doesn't warrant a dedicated src/pm function.

Common mistakes

  • treating ESG integration as inherently return-sacrificing — the value-based framing argues the opposite (ESG factors as financially material risk information), though empirical evidence on ESG and performance is genuinely mixed and approach-dependent
  • assuming one company's ESG rating is comparable across data providers — low correlation between different vendors' ESG scores for the same company is a well-documented, real methodological problem, not a minor detail
  • conflating negative screening (excluding on principle) with ESG integration (using ESG factors as financial risk inputs) — a portfolio can do either, both, or neither, and they answer different questions

Free resources