评论
打印
But it does illustrate that environmental leadership is compatible with good returns.
但它确实说明注重环境问题和高效益并不矛盾。
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，而我们的星球还能受益，难道这不应该成为常规吗？
Are investors, particularly institutional investors,engaged?
那么投资者们，尤其是机构投资者们，参与进来了吗？
Well, some are,
有些已经参与进来了，
and a few are really at the vanguard.
有几个还是先锋。
Hesta is a retirement fund for health.
是澳大利亚的一家退休基金，
and community services employees in Australia,
服务于医疗和社区服务人员。他们的资产为220亿。
They believe that ESG has the potential to impact risks and returns,
他们相信ESG有潜力影响风险和回报，
so incorporating it into the investment process is core to their duty to act in the best interest of fund members,
所以他们把将ESG纳入投资过程作为他们的核心职责，以达到为基金成员谋取最佳利益的目的。
core to their duty.
他们的核心职责！
You gotta love the Aussies, right?
澳大利亚人是不是很可爱？
CalPERS is another example. CalPERS CalPERS is the pension fund CalPERS for public employees in California,
是另一个例子。是加州公务员的养老基金，
they are the second largest in the U.S.
排在美国第二大，
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.
现在，他们正朝着 100%可持续性投资的方向转变，他们要通过系统地将ESG整合到整个基金中来实现。
Why? They believe it's critical to superior long-term returns, full stop.
为什么呢？他们相信这是获得长期高效益的关键。就这样。
In their own words, long-term value creation requires the effective management of three forms of capital:
用他们自己的话来说： 创造长期的价值，需要有效地管理三种形式的资本：
financial, human, and physical.
财务,人力和物理。
This is why we are concerned with ESG.
这就是我们为什么关心ESG。
Now, I do speak to a lot of investors
我跟很多投资者交谈过，
as part of my job,
因为这是我工作的一部分。
and not all of them see it this way.
并不是所有人都这样看问题。
Often I hear, We are required to maximize returns,
我经常听到的是， 我们需要将回报最大化，
so we don't do that here,
所以我们这儿不做这些。
or, We don't want to use the portfolio
或者，我们不想用公司的投资组合
to make policy statements.
做政策方面的声明。
The one that just really gets under my skin is,
最让我受不了的是，
If you want to do something about that,
如果你想在这方面做点儿什么，
just make money, give the profits to charities.
就去赚钱，然后把收益捐给慈善机构。
It's eyes rolling, eyes rolling.
气得我直翻白眼。
I mean, let me clarify something right here.
让我来澄清一下我的意思。
Companies and investors are not
公司和投资者都不能
singularly responsible for the fate of the planet.
靠他们单独的力量来负责地球的命运。
They don't have indefinite social obligations,
他们没有无限的社会义务，
and prudent investing and finance theory aren't subordinate to sustainability.
而且审慎的投资和金融理论并不是要让位给可持续性，
They're compatible.
他们是相容的。
So I'm not talking about tradeoffs here.
所以我不是说要作某种牺牲。
But institutional investors are the x-factor in sustainability.
但机构投资者是可持续发展中最重要的因素。
Why do they hold the key?
他们为什么这么关键呢？
