Last week, Harvard University decided that it needed to get into the thick of ESG (environmental, social, and governance) action. The US$42 billion academic endowment fund—the world’s largest—won’t be investing in companies in the fossil fuel industry anymore.

It didn’t happen overnight and took years (a decade, actually) of activism from students, faculty, and alumni to make this happen. And while it’s all part of a sea change that’s happening across the investment management industry, one part of the letter from Harvard’s President stood out to me.

The use of the term fiduciary. 

Because that’s one question that has increasingly popped up when fund managers employ the lens of socially responsible investing (SRI) to their investment decisions—does ESG investing mean that companies are operating within their fiduciary duties?

In its simplest form, fiduciary duty means that the asset manager has to act in the best interests of its clients. And if we put it bluntly, it means whether the investments are made in companies or assets that make money for the client; not just as per the whims and fancies of the asset manager. 

While ESG may be an enticing proposition to get with the times, if the interest of the client (making money) dictates that there’s one company with not-so-great ESG credentials, but with strong financials, and the potential to deliver scorching returns, then ESG considerations should be parked to the side. Probably.

Questions about this fiduciary responsibility are even more relevant today, with energy companies’ valuations bouncing back, the Asian coal price benchmark at its highest since 2008, and ESG funds beginning to underperform against the regular stock market indices. If asset managers have divested away from these markets, are they actually fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility then?

A short-termist’s view would be to invest in those companies that are poised at the start of certain business cycles. For example—and this is just hypothetical—shipping. Pent-up, post-pandemic demand along with a host of other factors are leading to super-normal profits for the shipping industry. And that’s a tailwind for the stock prices of these shipping companies. 

But, let’s take a long-term view that the shipping industry contributes majorly to carbon emissions and global warming. Again, hypothetically (it’s responsible for 2.2% of all global greenhouse gas emissions). 

What’s the fiduciary responsibility here? Capitalise on the short-term profit potential or focus on the longer-term interest of the planet?

The answer may be more nuanced and not quite black and white. In fact, it might depend on the ‘type’ of asset manager.

And endowment funds are kind of like pension funds. Their investment horizon is really long term. 

But stock price performance can still sow the seeds of doubt. 

Take, for example, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) that exited tobacco stocks in 2000. In 2016, it revisited the decision when tobacco stocks started creating shareholder wealth. And then finally in 2021, it decided that it had indeed done the right thing by divesting from tobacco companies. 

Even today, the question of fiduciary responsibility still hangs like a cloud over pension fund managers. 

This also means that even though there has been a rush of money towards ESG-linked investments, more clarity on whether it is really a fiduciary duty could lead to more cash flowing into the theme.

I said earlier that it could be argued that the fiduciary angle for ESG really depends on the ‘type’ of asset manager. So, what about companies like mutual funds or hedge funds that are definitely more focussed on quarterly and annual performance metrics? 

While it’s not specifically about ESG, here’s some excerpts from a note by Marcellus Investment Managers from 2019. On the ethics of investing in certain kinds of companies—even monopolies. 

For now, it’s all subjective.

We’ve written in past editions about how automobile makers are bundling in access to specific features in the cars they sell as “subscriptions”.

But why stop at selling access to features as a subscription, if you can sell the entire car itself as a subscription? 

In just one year, Volvo UK has shifted 15% of its retail customer base to subscriptions.

The shift to subscriptions is only the second half of the story though. The first half is the willingness of customers to shift to online buying. After all, if you’re walking into a car showroom to sign up for a subscription, then you’re… leasing.

As this trend plays out globally, car dealerships will bear the brunt of it.

You might be tempted to think that India will take a while to adopt these trends. Don’t. 

The combination of venture capital-funded copycat models along with fast-evolving consumer behaviour models for transacting online (if people can buy a home online, why not a car?) often leads to significant trends rippling across country borders fast. 

In fact, Hyundai, Maruti Suzuki, and a few other carmakers already have subscription options in India. But, according to Shashank Srivastava, executive director (marketing and sales), Maruti Suzuki India, conversions are still low and only 1-2% of these enquiries turn into actual subscriptions. 

So, if you could buy your next car as a subscription service instead of outright (even if funded by loans), why wouldn’t you? 

Silicon Valley is making a new kind of pledge to save the environment. The “water pledge” is now a yardstick that companies like Google and Facebook are set to measure themselves by. Both companies made an announcement at the end of August that they would be “water positive” by 2030. Which means that they’re going to put more water back into the local environment than they suck out.

One of the biggest uses of water, for tech giants, is to keep their data centres cool—a goal that’s getting tougher as the need for data increases globally. The pandemic might have temporarily cleared the air of tail-pipe emissions, but a spike in work-from-home (WFH), gaming, delivery app usage, 5G rollout etc., has put a huge strain on water resources.

Water shortages across the globe are only getting worse. Now imagine putting a thirsty, water-guzzling data centre in a depleted water shed; you’ve got an epic environmental disaster on your hands. That’s why Google’s taking steps to reuse wastewater to cool its data centres. Facebook, on its part, is also building solar power plants to power its operations, which, according to the company, saved “1.4 billion cubic meters of water”.

The US is not the only country that’s going to have to deal with water-guzzling data centres. According to a report by JLL, a global real estate services company, India’s data centre capacity is going to double, from 491 MW to 1008 MW by 2023. That’s two years away. 

India’s climate is likely going to demand even more water to keep data centres cool. Let’s just juxtapose that with what India’s water shortage situation already looks like.

Source: World Resources Institute

The data centre sprawl will have to contend with these maps, before they put roots down and dig deep for water.

Open Network for Digital Commerce, or ONDC, is the Indian government’s alternative to the American “laissez-faire, completely market-driven model”. It aims to be seller-first and consumer-focussed and to shift power away from the e-commerce giants. But many stakeholders bring many problems and if not solved, the network might end up creating many more.

Le meme: 

Listen to the latest episode of our podcast here: https://the-ken.com/unofficial-sources/why-india-is-quietly-building-the-worlds-largest-e-commerce-platform/