The United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative(UNEP FI) is a strategic public-private partnership between UNEP andthe global financial services sector. UNEP FI works with over 175financial institutions that are signatories to the UNEP FI Statements,and a range of partner organisations, to develop and promotelinkages between the environment, sustainability and financialperformance. Through a comprehensive work programme, regionalactivities, training and research, UNEP FI carries out its mission toidentify, promote and realise the adoption of best environmental andsustainability practice at all levels of financial institution operations.The UNEP FI Asset Management Working Group is a globalplatform of asset managers that collaborate to understand the waysenvironmental, social and governance factors can affect investmentvalue, and the evolving techniques for their integration intoinvestment anaylsis and decision-making.Mercer’s Investment Consulting businessMercer is a leading global provider of investment consulting services,and offers customized guidance at every stage of the investmentdecision, risk management and investment monitoring process.We have been dedicated to meeting the needs of clients for morethan 30 years, and we work with the fiduciaries of pension funds,foundations, endowments and other investors in some 35 countries.We assist with every aspect of institutional investing (and retailportfolios in some geographies), from strategy, structure andimplementation to ongoing portfolio management. We createvalue through our commitment to thought leadership; world-class,independent research; and top-notch consultants with local expertise.In 2004, Mercer’s investment consulting business formed a specialistglobal Responsible Investment (RI) business unit dedicated todeveloping intellectual capital in this field. In this unit we work withinvestment fiduciaries around the world to implement RI programsand offer a range of services – from policy development to managerselection and monitoring.Demystifying Responsible Investment Performance A review of key academic and broker research on ESG factorsThe UNEP Finance Initiative and itsAsset Management Working GroupA joint report byThe Asset Management Working Group of theUnited Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiativeand A review of keyacademic and broker researchon ESG factors
October 2007DemystifyingResponsibleInvestmentPerformanceA review of keyacademic and broker researchon ESG factorsA joint report byThe Asset Management Working Group of theUnited Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiativeand Mercer
Disclaimer noticeThe information contained in the report is meantfor informational purposes only and is subject tochange without notice. The content of the report isprovided with the understanding that the authors andpublishers are not herein engaged to render adviceon legal, economic, or other professional issues andservices.Subsequently, UNEP FI and Mercer are also notresponsible for the content of websites and infor mation resources that may be referenced in thereport. The access provided to these sites does notconstitute an endorsement by UNEP FI and Mercer ofthe sponsors of the sites or the information containedtherein. Unless expressly stated otherwise, theopinions, findings, interpretations and conclusionsexpressed in the report are those of the variouscontributors to the report and do not necessarilyrepresent the views of UNEP FI and Mercer or themember institutions of the UNEP FI partnership,Mercer, UNEP, the United Nations or its MemberStates.While we have made every attempt to ensure that theinformation contained in the report has been obtainedfrom reliable and up-to-date sources, the changingnature of statistics, laws, rules and regulationsmay result in delays, omissions or inaccuracies inthe information contained in this report. As such,UNEP FI and Mercer make no represen tations asto the accuracy or any other aspect of informationcontained in this report.UNEP FI and Mercer are not responsible for any errorsor omissions, or for any decision made or action takenbased on information contained in this report or forany consequential, special or similar damages, even ifadvised of the possibility o f such damages.All information in this report is provided ‘as is’, withno guarantee of completeness, accuracy, timelinessor of the results obtained from the use of this infor mation, and without warranty of any kind, expressedor implied, including, but not limited to warrantiesof performance, merchantability and fitness for aparticular purpose. The information and opinionscontained in the report are provided without anywarranty of any kind, either expressed or implied.Copyright noticeThe report and the content of the report remain thesole property of UNEP FI and Mercer. None of theinformation contained and provided in the report maybe modified, reproduced, distributed, disseminated,sold, published, broadcasted or circulated, in wholeor in part, in any form or by any means, electronic ormechanical, including photocopying, or the use ofany information storage and retrieval system, withoutthe express written permission from the UNEP FISecretariat based in Geneva, Switzerland, Mercerbased in Toronto, Canada, or the appropriate affiliateor partner. The content of the report, including but notlimited to the text, photographs, graphics, illustrationsand artwork, names, logos, trademarks and servicemarks, remain the property of UNEP FI and Merceror its affiliates or contributors or partners and areprotected by copyright, trademark and other laws.Published in 2007 by UNEP FI and MercerCopyright UNEP FI/MercerDesigned and produced by Rebus, Pariswww.rebusparis.com
MystifyMain Entry: mys·ti·fyPronunciation: ‘mis-t&-”fIFunction: transitive verbInflected Form(s): -fied; -fy·ingEtymology: French mistifier, from mystèremystery, from Latin mysterium1: to perplex the mind of: BEWILDER2: to make mysterious or obscure mystifyan interpretation of a prophecy - mys·ti·fi·er /noun- mys·ti·fy·ing·ly / adverbDemystifyMain Entry: de·mys·ti·fyPronunciation: (“)dE-’mis-t&-”fIFunction: transitive verbto eliminate the mystifying features of- de·mys·ti·fi·ca·tion / nounSource: www.m-w.com
2Demystifying Responsible Investment Performance
Contents1Foreword from the United Nations Environment Programme52Foreword from Mercer’s Investment Consulting business63Introduction from the UNEP FI Asset Management Working Group74Overview of academic studies125Review of academic studies156Key academic findings367Overview of broker studies388Review of broker studies409Key broker findings5010Linking academic and broker findings5211Acknowledgments5312Appendix5513The language of responsible investment5914Glossary68A review of key academic and broker research on ESG factors3
4Demystifying Responsible Investment Performance
1Foreword from theUnited Nations Environment ProgrammeIt has been 15 years since 28 banks and their USD 2 trillion in assets gathered in New York to signa United Nations Environment Programme commitment to sound environmental management.Since then, the commitment between UNEP and those original 28 banks has grown into a uniquepublic-private partnership with 175 banks, insurers and investment firms from 38 countries.Today, it is known as the UNEP Finance Initiative, or simply UNEP FI.In the transformational years since UNEP FI began, financial services and capital marketshave operated in a rapidly changing and globalized economy that has delivered the hope ofprosperity for more people and, at the same time, intensified our collective environmental andsocial challenges.The threat of climate change impacts, the struggle to protect fragile ecosystems, and the under standing of the economic and social impacts of urban and industrial pollution, have embeddedthemselves in the global public perception as real and present dangers. We cannot underestimatethe influence of financial services and the potential impacts of the world’s most powerful privateinstitutions on delivering a more intelligent management of the environment and its nature-basedassets. Nor should we forget the fundamental importance of these assets that intimately supportour financial institutions, economies, capital markets and, ultimately, all life on Earth.For these reasons, the report by the UNEP FI Asset Management Working Group, “DemystifyingRes pon sible Investment Performance”, is welcomed by UNEP as a valuable contribution to ourcollective understanding of the rapidly evolving responsible investment field. Building a robustcase that shows definitively how sound integration of environmental, social and governancefactors does not compromise investment performance, and in many cases can enhance it, is animportant step for the global investment industry.Now, with more than 230 institutional investors from 30 countries representing USD 10 trillion inassets backing the Principles for Responsible Investment, we have the clearest of signals to thebroader investment community and capital markets that environmental, social and governanceconsiderations have to be part of mainstream business and investment.The examples of change within the financial services sector are encouraging, although placingsustainability in the mainstream of the sector will not happen overnight and will be forged overmany years ahead.Along with other United Nations efforts, UNEP stands ready to work with banks, insurers andinvest ment firms to make sustainable development the key to future and long-lasting businesssuccess. The UNEP FI Asset Management Working Group’s latest report is yet another importantcontribution to this transformational process.Achim SteinerUNEP Executive DirectorUnder-Secretary-General of the United NationsA review of key academic and broker research on ESG factors5
2Foreword from Mercer’sInvestment Consulting businessThere has long been a debate between those who regard environmental, social and governance(ESG) factors as being risk factors which can have a material impact on investment performanceand those who regard them as exclusive social issues. However, the evidence of materiality withregard to ESG factors is beginning to take shape as more academic and practitioner researchin this field emerges.Of the 20 academic studies reviewed in this report, it is interesting to see evidence of a positiverelationship between ESG factors and portfolio performance in half of these, with 7 reportinga neutral effect and 3 a negative association. A combination of short data samples, variabilityin data sources and different geographic regions probably explains the divergence in results.While many of the academic studies focus on examining the impact of screened versus traditionalportfolio returns, others consider the effect of voting and engagement activities on firm andportfolio performance, as well as integration into stock selection and portfolio construction. Onbalance, the evidence suggests that there at least does not appear to be a performance penaltyfrom taking wider factors into account in the investment management process.Over time, as more resources are allocated to research in this field and data comparabilityimproves, we anticipate that the evidence supporting ESG integration will become more robust.Indeed, we are already seeing evidence of materiality in the returns that ESG integrated strategiesare producing amongst practitioners (as evidenced by the broker studies also reviewed in thisreport). At Mercer we will continue to help asset owners in their quest to integrate ESG factorsinto fiduciary processes and to encourage investment managers to seek innovative solutionsfor integrating ESG into their investment decisions.6Tim GardenerJane AmbachtsheerGlobal HeadMercer’s Investment Consulting businessGlobal Head, Responsible InvestmentMercer’s Investment Consulting businessDemystifying Responsible Investment Performance
3Introduction from the UNEP FIAsset Management Working GroupThe UNEP FI Asset Management Working Group (AMWG) has worked hard since its foundingin 2003 to understand the ways environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors canaffect investment value, and the evolving techniques for their integration into the investmentprocess.In its ‘Materiality series’1 in 2004 and 2006, the AMWG explicitly recognised that ESG factorsare material to company value. Along with the ‘Freshfields study’2 in 2005, which providedassurance to institutional investors that the consideration of ESG factors is firmly grounded withinthe bounds of fiduciary duty, we are happy to look back at the contribution these studies havemade to advancing responsible investment.Last year, the launch of the Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) brought about theframework for the integration of ESG factors into the investment process. The PRI has swiftlybecome a global benchmark for responsible investing, and the term ESG itself is now embeddedin the financial vocabulary.In the first half of this year, we continued our efforts. Firstly, we explored the barriers to andopportunities for responsible investment in the private banking domain.3 Secondly, in partnershipwith the UK Social Investment Forum, we featured examples of some of the most advancedand creative responsible investment strategies and practices being employed by leading publicpension funds worldwide.4Yet challenges remain.Turning to performance, it is insightful to start by looking at the evolution of responsibleinvestment. The first generation used negative screening by excluding sectors based on ‘ethical’criteria. This was followed by the positive screening or ‘best-in-class’ approach, which selectstop performers within a permitted sector. Today, responsible investment is premised on thebelief that ESG factors can enhance financial performance and should therefore be integratedinto investment analysis and decision-making, including ownership practices. Consequently,shareholder activism/engagement is an approach increasingly being adopted. It is also noteworthythat the term ‘socially responsible investing’ (SRI) itself is evolving. While SRI is still widely used,it is now being redefined as ‘sustainable investing’, ‘responsible investing’ or ‘sustainable andresponsible investing.’ Regardless of the term, this is not mere semantics, but a true reflectionof the major shift in thinking associated with the huge environmental and social challenges ourworld is now facing, the corporate downfalls in recent memory, and the increasing belief thatthese changes have impacts on investment performance.Naturally, performance speaks loudest for most investors. A constant barrier to the widespreadacceptance of responsible investment has been the misconception that it automatically translatesto underperformance. The common school of thought is that a limited investment universe,as a result of a screening approach, entails a performance penalty. This has been the subject1234See www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/amwg materiality equity pricing report 2004.pdfand www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/show me the money.pdfSee www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/freshfields legal resp 20051123.pdfSee www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/unlocking value.pdfSee www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/infocus.pdfA review of key academic and broker research on ESG factors7
of much debate through the years, particularly in the context of fiduciary duty. Unfortunately,responsible investment appears to have borne the stigma of its largely exclusionary past.Therefore, it is important to recognise that the new philosophy of responsible investmentis proactive. It systematically integrates ESG factors into the investment process to enhancefinancial performance; and in doing so, identifies companies better positioned to benefit frominvestment performance over the long-term, and enhances the incentives for companies to alignwith the goals of sustainable development.In this vein, the very first Principle of the PRI states that: “We will incorporate ESG issues intoinvestment analysis and decision-making processes.” Not surprisingly, one of the most frequentlyasked questions is – how?It is for these reasons that the AMWG and Mercer partnered to produce this report. The aim istwofold – to demystify responsible investment performance, and to encourage more in-depthacademic and practitioner research on ESG factors.The report features a diverse set of academic and broker studies that analyses responsibleinvestment performance at both the company/stock and fund/portfolio level, including thematicstudies which bolster the materiality of ESG factors. We believe that the types of studies selectedprovide a useful and representative sample essential not only to demystify performance, but alsoto have a good picture of the current state and direction of ESG research. The academic andbroker findings were linked to achieve a holistic analysis and to set the scene going forward.In addition, a section featuring the contemporary ‘language of responsible investment’, a recentpublication of Mercer, was included to guide readers.The key studies reviewed in this report have articulated profound messages:nA variety of factors such as manager skill, investment style and time period are integral toinvestment performance. The argument that integrating ESG factors into investment analysisand decision-making will only lead to underperformance simply cannot be made.nMore rigorous quantitative ESG research is vital to improve the comparability of ESG criteriawith traditional financial criteria, and to make the linkages more distinct. This type of researchis already happening and we believe it will become more robust as demand for responsibleinvestment grows, be it for financial returns, ethics, sustainable development – or all of it.nSome authors and observers seem to confuse certain elements of financial discipline orinvestment style. There is a tendency to categorise responsible investment and compare it withother categories of style (e.g., growth/value, small/mid/large caps, any alternative investment).Responsible investment, as a financial discipline, can be successfully implemented in virtuallyany investment style.nCertain research methods appear imperfectly suited to answer the central question of fundperformance, while others do not seem to adequately distinguish between genuine ESG analysisand simple automatic exclusions (e.g., alcohol, tobacco and weapons).nFinally, from a macro perspective, it is clear that the short-term mindset of many in the financialworld is highly incompatible with the long-term horizon necessary to integrate ESG factors moreeffectively and for investors to act more responsibly.This early, the AMWG is already setting its sights on a sequel that will study ESG factors persector and its impacts on valuation models. Thus, this report should not be viewed as an endin itself, but as another enlightened step towards exploring the challenges and promise ofresponsible investing.8Demystifying Responsible Investment Performance
We thank Mercer, our partners in this report, for their invaluable contribution andprofessionalism.We thank UNEP FI signatories for taking the sustainable finance agenda from awareness toaction in the banking, insurance and investment communities.We thank PRI signatories across the entire investment chain for their commitment to thePrinciples.We offer this report to all investors, the academic community, and our peers in the investmentprofession.Steven A. Falci, CFAPaul Clements-HuntXavier DesmadrylSenior Vice President &Chief Investment Officer, EquitiesCalvert Group, Ltd.Co-Chair, Asset ManagementWorking Group, UNEP FIHeadUNEP Finance InitiativeGlobal Head of SRI ResearchHSBC InvestmentsCo-Chair, Asset ManagementWorking Group, UNEP FIA review of key academic and broker research on ESG factors9
The UNEP FI Asset Management Working GroupABN AMRO Banco Real BrasilBrazilAcuity Investment ManagementCanadaBNP Paribas Asset ManagementFranceCalvert Group, Ltd.United StatesClearBridge AdvisorsUnited StatesEurizon CapitalItalyGroupama Asset ManagementFranceHenderson Global InvestorsUnited KingdomHermes Pensions ManagementUnited KingdomHSBC InvestmentsFranceMitsubishi UFJ Trust & Banking Corp.Morley Fund ManagementPax World Management Corp.RCM (UK)10JapanUnited KingdomUnited StatesUnited KingdomDemystifying Responsible Investment Performance
AAAM1 3coloursC.epsABN AMRO Asset Management 1-line version, 3 PMS colours for coated paperWidth shield: 20 mmOverlap: 0,05 mmA UNIFI CompanyA review of key academic and broker research on ESG factors11
4Overview of academic studiesThis section of the report presents a review of twenty academic research papers that examinethe link between ESG factors and investment performance. The studies were selected on thebasis that they met one or all of the following criteria:nThey have been published in peer-reviewed academic journals or working papers that haveapplied and extended traditional finance theory to study the effect of environmental, social and/or governance factors on portfolio performance.nThey provide a good representation of different ESG factors under review, with variation interms of the research methods used and the country/region of analysis.nThey have been influential pieces of work in terms of widening the application of traditionalfinance theory to extra-financial factors, with some having been awarded prizes in recognitionof their contribution and/or frequently referenced in academic journals and industry reports.The framework used to present the key methods, results and implications of each study ispresented below.Narrative analysisnnnnFull academic referenceSummaryTestResultsTabular analysisnnnnnnnnnnnn12Target audienceRegionTime period of studyFinancial performance measure(s) – broadFinancial performance measure(s) – specificE, S or G measure(s) – broadE, S or G measure(s) – specificUnit of measurementNumber of unitsSource of ESG dataRI approachLink to other articles (as applicable)Demystifying Responsible Investment Performance
AuthorsTitle of studyTime periodof studyE, S or GRIapproachFindings onESG factors1Abramson, L. &Chung, D. (2000)Socially responsible investing: Viable forvalue investors?Sep 1990 Mar 2000ESGScreeningpositive2Barnett, M. &Salomon, R. (2006)Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinearrelationship between social responsibilityand financial performance.Jan 1972 Dec 2000E and SScreeningneutralpositive3Bauer, R., Otten, R. &Rad, A. (2006)Ethical investing in Australia: Is there afinancial penalty?Nov 1992 Apr 2003ESGScreeningneutral4Bello, Z. (2005)Socially responsible investing and portfoliodiversification.Jan 1994 Mar 2001Mainly S Screeningneutral5Benson, K.L.,Do socially responsible fund managersBrailsford, T.J. &really invest differently?Humphrey, J.E. (2006)Jan 1994 Dec 2003Mainly S Screeningneutral6Corporate social performance and stockBrammer, S., Brooks,returns: UK evidence from disaggregateC. & Pavelin, S. (2006)measures.Jun 1997 Jun 2002E and SScreeningneutralnegative7Chong, J., Her, M. &Phillips, G.M. (2006)To sin or not to sin? Now that’s thequestion.Sep 2002 Sep 2005Mainly S Screeningnegative8Core, J., Guay, W. &Rusticus, T. (2006)Does weak governance cause weak stockreturns? An examination of firm operatingperformance and investors’ expectations.Sep 1990 Dec1999GActivismneutral9Derwall, J., Guenster,N., Bauer, R. &Koedijk, K. (2005)The eco-efficiency premium puzzle. 1Jul 1995 Dec 2003EESGintegrationpositive10Geczy, C., Stambaugh, Investing in socially responsible mutualR. & Levin, D. (2005). funds (working paper).2Jul 1963 Dec 2001SScreeningnegative11Gompers, P., Ishii, J. &Corporate governance and equity prices.Metrick, A. (2003)Jan 1990 Dec 1999GActivismpositive12Hong, H. &The price of sin: The effects of social norms Jan 1965 Kacperczyk, M. (2006) on markets (working paper).Dec 2004SScreeningnegative13Opler, T.C. & Sokobin,Jo. (1995)Does coordinated institutional activismwork? An analysis of the activities of theCouncil of Institutional Investors.GActivismpositive14Orlitzky, M., Schmidt,F.L. & Rynes, S.L.(2003)Corporate social and financial performance: Jan 1972 Dec 1997A meta-analysis.3S, andE to alesserextentScreeningpositive15Schröder, M. (2004)The performance of socially responsibleinvestments: Investment funds and indices.Varied startdate:mid-1990s Sep 2002ESGScreeningneutralpositive16Shank, T. M.,Manullang, D.K. & Hill, Is it better to be naughty or nice?R.P. (2005)Dec 1993 Dec 2003ESG,withmore Sthan Eand GScreeningpositive123Jan 1991 Dec 1993Moskowitz Prize for Socially Responsible Investing, 2005 Winner.Moskowitz Prize for Socially Responsible Investing, 2003 Honourable Mention.Moskowitz Prize for Socially Responsible Investing, 2004 Winner.A review of key academic and broker research on ESG factors13
17Smith, M.P. (1996)Shareholder activism by institutionalinvestors: Evidence from CalPERS.Jan 1987 Dec 1993G18Statman, M. (2000)Socially responsible mutual funds.May 1990 Sep 1998Mainly S19Statman, M. (2006)Socially responsible indexes: Composition,performance, and tracking error.1May 1990 Apr 2004Mainly S20Van de Velde, E.,Vermeir, W. & Corten,F. (2005)Corporate social responsibility and financial Jan 2000 performance.Nov z Prize for Socially Responsible Investing, 2005 Honourable Mention.Demystifying Responsible Investment Performance
5Review of academic studies1Abramson, L. & Chung, D. (2000)Socially responsible investing: Viable for value investors?Journal of Investing, 9(3), pp.73-80SummaryThis paper looks at whether socially responsible investing (SRI) can only be incorporated intogrowth style investing1 successfully or whether it is also viable for value investors2. It does thisby creating two separate portfolios based on ranking stocks within the Domini Social Index(DSI) by relative yield and relative market capitalisations-to-revenues at different points. Thefirst portfolio, a rebalancing3 portfolio, ranks stocks every quarter while the second, a buy-andhold4 portfolio, ranks the stocks at the start of the time period and takes these as the stocksfor the portfolio for the entire time period. The overall conclusion of the paper is that SRI canprovide competitive returns relative to benchmark to both value and growth style investmentmanagers.TestOverall, the authors are trying to answer the question as to whether SRI transcends marketcycles and style preferences. They do this by conducting the following tests for two strategies,a rebalancing strategy and a buy-and-hold strategy:1.Assessing the performance of value stocks within the DSI.2.Analysing the performance of value subsets of the DSI against popular value benchmarks.ResultsOverall findings on ESG factors: Positive1.A rebalancing strategy of ranking DSI stocks by valuation each quarter yielded a 17.5% averageannualised return versus an average of 15.1% for three value benchmarks over the studiesspecified time period. Sharpe ratio was 0.87 versus benchmark average of 0.80.2.A buy-and-hold strategy, in which a group of stocks was purchased at the beginning of the studiestime period based on ranking DSI stocks by valuation and holding them until the end of the period,resulted in good annualised average returns (16.2%), but a below-benchmark Sharpe ratio of 0.76.CommentarySince the study was undertaken during the tech boom of the 1990s, results are very much afunction of this time period and may have been different if the study was undertaken overanother time period.1234Investing in stocks expected to achieve above average earnings growth. Growth stocks normally have a high P/E ratio relativeto the market as a whole, as investors anticipate that earnings will increase in the future.Investors which place emphasis on identifying shares they believe to be underpriced by the market (on the basis of indicatorssuch as P/E ratio and dividend yield).Making adjustments to a portfolio to counteract the fact that different assets have performed differently over a period, and thuscomprise different percentages of the portfolio than originally intended.An investment strategy in which stocks are bought and then held for a long period of time regardless of short-term marketmovements.A review of key academic and broker research on ESG factors15
Target audienceInvestment management industry, financial communityRegionUSTime period of studySep 1990 - Mar 2000Financial performance measure(s) - broadIndex performance (DSI, S&P 500, Russell 1000 value, S&P Barra valueand Wilshire Large Cap value) and relative valuation techniques.Financial performance measure(s) - specificSharpe ratio, relative market capitalisation-to-revenues, relative dividendyieldE, S or G measure(s) - broadESGE, S or G measure(s) - specificBroad studyUnit of measurementStocksNumber of units177 for rebalancing strategy, 120 stocks for buy-and-hold strategySource of ESG dataCompustatRI approachScreening2Barnett, M. & Salomon, R. (2006)Beyond dichotomy: The curvilinear relationship between social responsibilityand financial performanceStrategic Management Journal, 27(11), pp.1101-1122.SummaryUsing 61 funds, the authors firstly examine whether the relationship between social responsibilityand financial performance is curvilinear (U-shaped) – and concludes it is. In other words, SRIfunds with weak screening have a larger universe to select from and are therefore likely to bemore diversified and achieve improved risk-adjusted return. As screening standards increase,diversification is more likely to decrease and risk-adjusted return to worsen. However, therecomes a point where social screening intensifies and better-managed, more stable firms areselected, and risk-adjusted returns improve. Sec
investment anaylsis and decision-making. Mercer's Investment Consulting business Mercer is a leading global provider of investment consulting services, and offers customized guidance at every stage of the investment decision, risk management and investment monitoring process. We have been dedicated to meeting the needs of clients for more
responsible investment. Responsible investment (RI), also known as "sustainable investment" or "socially responsible investment", consists of incorporating environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors into the selection and management of investments. Desjardins is a responsible investment pioneer. In 1990,
MacMillan Group Meeting June 11, 2015. Demystifying the Magic Methyl Effect. Demystifying the Magic Methyl Effect "In comparison to its importance to the pharmaceutical industry, the methyl group is, in our opinion, underrepresented in recent synthetic chemistry.
Chinese Investment in Australian Healthcare, January 2018 , Demystifying Chinese Investment in Australia, June 2018. 2019 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member rm of the KPMG network of independent member rms af liated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss
Responsible Investment Responsible Investment 2020 Review 3 BMO Global Asset Management 2 BMO Global Asset Management Growing the Good The COVID-19 pandemic has changed much about the way . we live and work; it has been a year none of us could have . expected. Yet through it our commitment to responsible investment at BMO is as clear as ever.
investment, industry of investment, year of investment and stage of investment. The parameter estimates show California as a location for investment is significantly different in scale, industry and stage of investment from other states. The investment bubble of 1999 and 2000 is found to have created different patterns
European Investment Bank European Investment Bank European Investment Bank European Investment Bank European Investment Bank Investment Facility ACP-EU Cotonou Partnership Agreement Revised Cotonou Partnership Agreement, Annex II, Article 3.
32 genes responsible for autosomal recessive nonsyn-dromic hearing loss (DFNB), 8 genes responsible for both DFNA and DFNB, one gene responsible for auditory neuropathy, 3 genes responsible for X-linked hearing loss, and 23 genes responsible for syndromic hearing loss. A list of the targeted genes responsible for nonsyndromic
A. Anatomi Tulang Belakang 1. Anatomi Tulang Kolumna vertebralis atau yang biasa disebut sebagai tulang belakang merupakan susunan dari tulang-tulang yang disebut dengan vertebrae. Pada awal perkembangan manusia, vertebrae berjumlah 33 namun beberapa vertebrae pada regio sacral dan coccygeal menyatu sehingga hanya terdapat 26 vertebrae pada manusia dewasa. 26 vertebrae tersebut tersebar .