This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
EE: There’s a general concern about greenwashing and the dissonance between what many companies say they believe about ESG issues and what they are actually doing. Do you feel corporate greenwashing has increased or decreased from the 1970s and ’80s? And what can investors do about it? What are your thoughts on that?
The Impact Investing Principles have been really helpful, especially given the increased scrutiny of funds and concerns over greenwashing. We believe there is an opportunity cost in negativescreening or exclusionary approaches, because you may miss out on the benefits from the [transition] opportunity.
European efforts to bring transparency to ESG funds haven’t addressed fears of greenwashing. Different approaches to product classification have sown confusion and raised greenwashing concerns among both institutional and retail investors. While SFDR was designed to avoid greenwashing, it has not achieved its objective.
along with ongoing corporate greenwashing and fossil-fuel disinformation, it’s sometimes hard to tell if society is moving forward or slipping back. The Clean200 uses negativescreens. The full list of exclusionary screens is provided below. You follow the money, of course.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content