No matter how one refers to it — “ESG” (environmental, social and governance), “responsible” or “sustainable” investing — the world is paying increased attention to investment decisions that include nonfinancial factors. Research examines if investment managers invest their clients’ capital as responsibly as they pledge to.
SAMRIDH Healthcare Blended Finance Facility improves access to affordable and quality health care for the most socioeconomically vulnerable in India. It leverages philanthropic funding to mitigate barriers for private investment and drive greater commercial investments toward health system strengthening and is a leading public-private partnership.
Conventional wisdom is that active-fund managers are paid to be contrarians; they take risks and go against trends. But new research shows that sometimes they’re the herd: In the bear market of February and March 2020, institutional investors amplified price crashes and volatility by fire-selling, and they focused on cash rather than ESG metrics.
In April 2009, Genzyme became the target of Relational Investors (RI), an activist investment fund. It had built a 2.6 percent stake and demanded that Termeer focus on returning cash to shareholders. Should he fight RI and risk being ousted, or should he welcome the activist’s advice on creating shareholder value and risk losing control?
What is socially responsible investing? Is its increasing momentum sustainable? And are international commitments to ESG practices making an impact? Darden Professors Mary Margaret Frank and Pedro Matos discuss issues related to this popular phenomenon.
In a world of increased financial globalization, foreign investors have a bad reputation in some circles, sometimes being labeled “locusts” for what’s been seen as their plaguing effect on local companies and economies. But new research by Darden School of Business Professor Pedro Matos and three colleagues may soon turn that idea on its head.