Navigating ESG: Forward Thinking

Panelists discuss how new ESG issues will inform investors’ focus and opportunities going forward.

Environment, social and governance disclosures for companies lurk just around the bend, either directly or via business they conduct in other regions, according to speakers at PLANADVISER’s Navigating ESG Livestream on November 8.

Corporate sustainability regulations coming to Europe next year will be relevant for both domestic companies and those operating in the countries, meaning a number of large U.S. firms, according to Mirtha Kastrapeli, executive director of ESG Corporate Ratings in the ESG practice of Institutional Shareholder Services Inc., which also owns PLANADVISER.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

This year, the EU passed deforestation regulation that seeks to ensure companies are not using materials in their supply chain that come from deforestation or breaches of local environmental laws. Separately, the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, while details are still being negotiated, is slated to go into effect at the end of 2024. It calls on companies to identify actual or potential risks to human rights and the environment and to try and mitigate those risks.

“It’s really going to require European companies, but also companies that are doing business in Europe under a specific threshold, to consider their social and environmental impacts of their operations across the supply chain,” Kastrapeli said. “These future regulatory risks are now a real risk. It’s a risk that is coming in the next few years that is going to impact companies and investors.”

Allison Itami, a principal in Groom Law Group, Chartered, said U.S. companies are likely familiar or already working with such ESG disclosures. In California, in particular, a law going beyond Securities and Exchange Commission disclosure rules will be going into effect in 2025 that mandates corporate climate and climate-related risk disclosures.

“Companies who have a European presence, who have a California presence, are already working on this,” she said. “I also think that none of these are particularly new in concept. How it’s put together, how it’s disclosed might be new, but investors who are already doing their due diligence are asking questions about resiliency and all of these things.”

Mitigating Risk

Kastrapeli said investors should think about ESG as a “risk mitigation tool,” ranging across “operational risk, regulatory risk, reputational risk and, potentially, litigation risk with some of the new regulation.”

The sustainability expert believes there is “good news” for companies and investors in the form of established frameworks for how to report on ESG issues, both regionally and globally.

She noted disclosure methodologies created by the International Sustainability Standards Board, as well as the European Sustainability Reporting Standards in Europe, that are providing clarity on how to consider and report on ESG factors.

There are some differences between the European and ISSB approaches to ESG disclosures, Kastrapeli noted. The EU is focused on a “double-materiality” approach in terms of both “how the world affects a company and how the company affects the world.” Meanwhile, the ISSB is more focused on the financial materiality on the company itself in terms of long-term impact.

Kastrapeli recommended that U.S. investors start with the ISSB standards when approaching ESG disclosure standards.

Retirement Investing, Litigation Risk

When it comes ESG investing in qualified retirement plans, Itami referred to the “all things being equal” test. When used under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the test provides the baseline that if an investment is equal in all pecuniary factors, then it is allowable to consider a “collateral” benefit for inclusion.

“That has fundamentally been the test for decades,” Itami said. “I don’t expect that test to change going forward.”

What has changed, Itami said, is that ESG investing in retirement plans has become “highly politicized,” including multiple lawsuits, creating risk beyond the ERISA framework.

“Even if the legal risk is very clear, that doesn’t prevent someone from suing you over your decision, and it does not prevent that lawsuit from driving up costs,” she said.

That litigation risk is causing “folks to be reluctant to jump in” to implementing sustainable investing in retirement plans, Itami said. For plan sponsors to feel comfortable implementing ESG investing factors, they should seek expert advice that can guide them on the legal standards that already exist under ERISA and through the “all things being equal” test, Itami said.

When it comes to investors considering ESG factors in decisions overall, however, Kastrapeli said the “train has left the station.” A combination of the regulations with demands of investors and companies means it is hard to “disconnect” ESG from the markets.

She noted that ESG analysts are no longer “off in a corner” of an asset manager or pension firm, but part of the core analysis around investment decisions.

“I cannot imagine a world in which we start taking information out when making an investment decision,” she said. “You can call it whatever you want, but [ESG factors] are fundamental to the work.”

Advisers Selling Product, Not Process, in Fiduciary Rule Crosshairs

Experts discuss the ripple effect of the Department of Labor’s proposed fiduciary rule amendments.

The lines are being drawn over the supporters and detractors of the proposed amendments to the definition of what it means to be a fiduciary released by the White House and Department of Labor last Tuesday.

As Michael Kreps, an ERISA attorney at the Groom Law Group, pointed out in a reaction post, the situation could be similar to an attempt by the administration of former President Barack Obama to amend the regulations. Although the administration of President Joe Biden and the DOL have given it a new name—the retirement security rule—Kreps points out that they seek a similar result: bringing individual advisers seeking one-time retirement rollovers or selling annuities under ERISA.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

Public comments—against, in favor or some combination—are being prepared by industry organizations, investment firms, insurers and advisories. On Wednesday, 18 trade organizations from retirement, insurance and asset management requested that the DOL double the 60-day comment period to 120 to allow for additional responses.

But while the attention is widespread, the focus will most likely be on those operating in individual advisement for commissions and retail annuity sales—which happen to be booming—according to industry players.

“The rule is targeting those that are selling a product, not a process,” says Eric Dyson, executive director of 90 North Consulting LLC.

Conflicts ‘at the Root’

Dyson, who works with plan sponsors to find retirement plan advisers trained in the Employee Retirement Security Act, notes that a big part of that process is unearthing “conflicts of interest” in being compensated for certain product areas. When it comes to individual advisers selling retail annuities or one-time rollovers, those businesses are sometimes driven by commissions made from those transactions.

“That is at the root of what we are digging into here,” he says.

But earning fees or commissions on products, according to some detractors of the proposal, will actually limit the very people the proposal is intended to help: those with fewer assets to save in retirement.

Jack Elder, who, as director of advanced markets at CBS Brokerage, works with advisers to offer life insurance products, divides the financial advice market into three categories.

In the first, a person with assets writes a check to work with a financial adviser. In the second, a saver has enough assets that an adviser will work with them for a percent-of-assets fee based on how well the portfolio performs. In the third, someone can work with an adviser who earns compensation for the products or companies the adviser represents.

This third pool, Elder says, is already heavily regulated to provide a “standard of care” to clients, including the SEC, FINRA, professional licensing organizations, state insurance commissioners and state and federal consumer regulators. He sees the DOL’s proposal as “duplication” that would, ultimately, reduce the advice being provided to those with fewer assets.

“This thing is a land grab,” Elder says. “If you aren’t somebody who can write a check for advice, or if my assets aren’t sufficient enough to get me entry into a broker/dealer or RIA, then what am I left with? … Thousands of Americans that were getting financial professional advice would stop getting professional advice. The retirement gap, which is already growing, would accelerate.”

Who Should Care?

For qualified plan retirement providers already working with clients under ERISA, it may affect how they talk to potential clients, according to attorney Kreps.

“The proposed rules don’t necessarily change the day-to-day fiduciary advice advisors are providing plans,” he says. “But the rules do impact how advisers market themselves. DOL acknowledged that touting your own qualifications isn’t advice in and of itself, but if an adviser talks about investment strategies or products, the sales discussion can quickly become fiduciary advice, which is a problem because it could lead to ERISA violations.”

That extends to the DOL’s mention of advisers giving retirement investment menu advice, according to Kreps.

In its attempt to ensure all investment menu discussions are part of the fiduciary rule, the DOL “seems to be trying to get at the marketing discussions that happen when a provider offers an investment platform,” he says. “Historically, a person wasn’t viewed as providing advice by just marketing a product, but DOL is turning that on its head and saying that you can become a fiduciary if you use the wrong words when describing the platform.”

Kreps notes that operating as a fiduciary does not necessarily mean advisers won’t receive commissions for selling products like annuities. In the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation Best Interest, which covers these types of one-off transactions, the regulator “was explicit that it was not banning commissions,” according to the attorney.

“Technically, DOL’s new rule would permit commissions, too, for those crossing the line into providing advice, but the financial institution would be required to ensure that the product is in the best interest of consumers and mitigate sales conflicts,” he says.

Who Will Pay?

Eric Droblyen, president and CEO of small business 401(k) recordkeeper Employee Fiduciary, sees the proposals as positive for the retirement industry and savers because he sees it protecting investors who are gambling with what may be most of their assets.

“Deciding to roll your 401(k) account to an IRA, weighing the fees, considering the benefits—that’s beyond the ability of 99% of people,” he says. “You really need that regulatory baseline to help the little guy out.”

Droblyen believes if, through the amendments, consumers are given a more “apples to apples” comparison between what they can get within their retirement plans as opposed to rolling out, many will likely choose to stay to take advantage of the lower-cost options, along with advice they can get within plan.

“If [a retirement saver] goes with a rollover recommendation or an insurance products—that’s huge,” he says. “There’s no going back from it; if you’re in a good, low-cost plan, you can’t get back in once you leave. … If we are moving toward conflict-free advice, that is good news.”

Attorney Kreps notes that there already are rules in place for selling commission-based products in 43 states by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners. But the DOL’s “best interest” fiduciary overlay would mean a significant ramping up of process and resources that, in the end, could ultimately land on consumers.

“The proposed rule would almost certainly increase distribution costs, because financial institutions and professionals will need to do more work and take more risk,” he says. “Most of those costs will ultimately be borne by consumers, and the segments of the market that can’t bear the costs will likely stop being served. That seems like basic economics, and the debate between DOL and the industry is whether that is a positive change.”

 

«