Exploring the Issues with ESG assessments in Investment Decision-Making : Insights from the Swedish Fund Market

Abstract: Sustainable investing has seen a significant increase in the past years and is continuing to gain momentum with the constant rise of awareness and concern of the climate crisis. It is necessary for modern mutual fund companies to conduct ESG assessments as it provides a comprehensive understanding of a firm's sustainability performance, and identifies potential risks and opportunities which lay ground for investment decisions. However, there are still issues with fully aligning financial flows with sustainability goals. This study explores current issues regarding ESG assessment in investment decisions by mapping and examining Swedish fund companies. Furthermore, these issues will be explored if they are consistent with previous research. This study contributes to the literature by giving a comprehensive overview of issues regarding ESG assessments that are well-grounded in a real, sustainability-mature market, and will hopefully help investors and other stakeholders to get a deeper understanding of the issues, challenges and limitations associated with ESG assessment. By doing a case study of the Swedish fund market that tests factors derived from international literature, it was found that there are numerous issues in the process of conducting an ESG assessment in investment decisions. Firstly, there were issues regarding the collection of data that the fund companies use in order to conduct an ESG assessment. There is a lack of available, reliable and accessible data for fund companies to use directly and for the ESG rating agencies to use to rate companies. It is somewhat paradoxical as the fund companies feel strongly about developing their own methods for ESG assessment as they expressed hesitancy in using data from ESG rating agencies due to concerns about accuracy and comparability. By having individual methods, the fund companies gain control over the investment objectives and strategies, and hence, may avoid reputational damage. ESG rating agencies were generally discussed in the literature, as there was clear evidence of divergence between rating agencies and poor coverage of firms, which were also echoed by the fund companies. However, the companies still use ESG rating agency’s services as a support in their own ESG methods. Furthermore, regulations and legislation were an important finding in this study as fund companies perceived it to be developing in the right direction. However, the fund companies experienced being squeezed where they have demands and requirements, but no useful tools or material to achieve and satisfy them effectively. There are too many directives, actors, and initiatives for smaller fund companies to comply with, which causes frustration, misunderstandings and fuzziness among all actors on the financial market. Therefore, industry organizations such as the Swedish Investment Fund Association (SIFA) have a great responsibility to act as legal advisors and facilitate this transition. Lastly, it is ambiguous whether a standardized ESG assessment is desirable and/or even feasible in practice. While uniform regulations are required, there is also a major value in the freedom of interpretation in order to maintain the competitive advantage of having individual assessment methods. Succeeding in identifying material factors and standardizing the definition of sustainable investmentsis a challenge. Better integration between ESG and financial materiality will be required to create attractive longterm value in the future.