Get real! Individuals prefer more sustainable investments. Rob Bauer Tobias Ruof Paul Smeets

Transcription

1 Get real! Individuals prefer more sustainable investments Rob Bauer Tobias Ruof Paul Smeets

2 UN Sustainable Development Goals

3

4 Current investment strategy Climate change Reduction of CO2 Decent work Gender equality Justice No corruption

5 You can add a fourth SDG Responsible consumption and production No child labor

6 Main Question Do you want Pensioenfonds Detailhandel to add the fourth sustainable development goal Responsible consumption and production? Yes, add No, do not add No opinion

7 Adding a SDG means expanding sustainable investing (voting, engagement and integration) Financial returns count, but also social returns

8 Which percentage chooses 4 SDGs?

9

10 Context Jan 2018 High-Level Expert Group (HLEG) Citizens with savings to invest should be empowered to invest in portfolios that reflect their sustainability and ethical preferences May 2018 Action Plan of European Commission Investment firms should ask retail investors about their preferences Goal Amend Delegated Acts under MiFID II When assessing if an investment product meets their clients' needs, firms should also consider the sustainability preferences of each client Important how investors are asked!

11 Real choice Voting 50% rule Choice is implemented Which percentage chooses 4 SDGs?

12

13

14 Result 1 66% in favor of expansion No hypothetical gap

15

16 Result 2 Respondents predict <50% In reality: 66%

17 No hypothetical gap Strong Preferences Financial beliefs Low response quality

18 Preferences

19 Preferences (1) (2) 4 SDGs No opinion Social preferences (std) *** (0.1023) (0.0846) Time preferences (std) *** (0.1243) (0.0773) Demographics Yes Yes Financial background Yes Yes Observations 2,387 2,387 One STD higher SP, 39% more likely to choose 4 SDGs One STD higher TP, 67% more likely to choose 4 SDGs

20 Strong preferences? Framing effects?

21

22 External validation Voting behavior in 2017 Sustainability score of political parties

23 Sample 2017 Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (VVD) 23.2% 21.3% Democraten 66 (D66) 14.4% 12.2% GroenLinks 14.0% 9.1% Christen-Democratisch Appèl (CDA) 12.0% 12.4% SP (Socialistische Partij) 7.5% 9.1% Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) 5.3% 13.1% ChristenUnie 5.0% 3.4% Partij van de Arbeid (P.v.d.A.) 4.9% 5.7% Partij voor de Dieren 4.6% 3.2% 50PLUS 2.8% 3.1% Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij (SGP) 2.3% 2.1% Forum voor Democratie 2.1% 1.8% DENK 0.4% 2.1% Other 1.5% 1.5%

24 Preferences (1) (2) 4 SDGs No opinion Social preferences (std) ** (0.1286) (0.1129) Time preferences (std) *** (0.2044) (0.1176) Preferences for sustainable *** policies (std) (0.1336) (0.1165) One STD higher PfSP, 31% more likely to choose 4 SDGs Demographics Yes Yes Financial background Yes Yes Observations 2,387 2,387

25 Result 3 Strong preferences no hypothetical gap Actual voting behavior strong predictor

26 What about return expectations?

27

28

29

30 Result 4 Even those with negative beliefs choose 4 SDGs Return expectations cannot explain choices

31 Were participants confused?

32 Exclusion of participants who did not finish R: 26.9% H: 23.8% did not understand the treatment R: 14.0% H: 11.9% wanted more information R: 33.5% H: 33.2%

33

34 Result 5 Poor answer quality cannot explain choices

35 Strong preferences drive our results Social preferences Time preferences Preferences for sustainable policies No framing effect Returns matter only little No confusion

36 Exclusion...?

37 Backup

38 Did participants care about the real choice? Theory (Harrison, 2006): A majority vote is incentive-compatible if it is (1) binary, (2) consequential, and (3) if people care about its outcome. CHECK Sample: Participants should especially care if they feel pivotal Q1: How many will choose 4 SDGs? Pivotal, if prediction between 40% and 60% R: 73.6% H: 72.9% 4 Q2: How many will participate in this survey? Pivotal if below median expectation (less than 10k) Q1 & Q2: Those who are pivotal in both cases R: 72.5% H: 71.4% R: 71.9% H: 75.6% S D G s

39 Control Question Understood treatment If a majority chooses "yes, add",... a. Pensioenfonds Detailhandel guarantees to add the fourth SDG. b. Pensioenfonds Detailhandel cannot guarantee that it will add the fourth SDG, but may include the results of the survey in its choice.

40 Invited Observations Invited 49,552 Participated 10.2% 5,047 Real 2,444 Hypothetical 2,455 Completed 5.1% 2,507 Real 1,220 Hypothetical 1,209

41 Randomization check Real Hypothetical p-value Mean Median SD Obs Mean Median SD Obs Demographics Female 60.8% 1, % 1, a Age , , b Highly educated 29.9% 1, % 1, a Financial background Net income (monthly, per household) Low income ( 0 to 2,500) Middle income ( 2,500 to 4,000) High income (above 4,000) 2,837 2,750 1, ,901 2,750 1, b 36.6% % % % % % Do not report 25.0% % a Chi square test b Kruskal Wallis test

42 Sample (n=2,508) Voted in % 85.4% Sample (n=1,581) 4 SDGs 3 SDGs VVD 21.29% 23.15% 71.06% 13.75% PVV (Partij voor de Vrijheid) 13.06% 5.25% 55.56% 16.05% CDA 12.38% 12.02% 74.33% 6.42% Democraten 66 (D66) 12.23% 14.42% 85.00% 8.18% Similar distribution of votes GROENLINKS 9.13% 14.04% 89.81% 5.09% SP (Socialistische Partij) 9.09% 7.53% 78.45% 6.03% Partij van de Arbeid (P.v.d.A.) 5.70% 4.93% 77.92% 6.49% ChristenUnie 3.39% 5.00% 76.00% 9.33% Partij voor de Dieren 3.19% 4.62% 88.89% 2.78% 50PLUS 3.11% 2.78% 70.73% 7.32% Even those who should be less in favor clearly vote for 4 SDGs Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij (SGP) 2.08% 2.34% 72.22% 8.33% DENK 2.06% 0.38% 83.33% 0.00% Forum voor Democratie 1.78% 2.09% 48.39% 32.26% Other 1.51% 1.45% 60.87% 17.39%