Reconciling ethics and returns in pursuit of a sustainable economy

The transition to a net-zero carbon economy is often thought of as inevitable given the overwhelming scientific consensus that mitigating climate change is necessary to avoid catastrophic consequences.

However, justice within this transition is not guaranteed. The concept of a ‘just transition’ represents a difficult ethical and systemic challenge, and the pathway to achieving it is full of tensions, contradictions, and conflicting incentives.

The term ‘just transition’ encapsulates the idea of ensuring fairness and equity in the shift towards a sustainable economy, particularly for those who may bear the brunt of the transition’s disruptive effects, such as workers in carbon-intensive industries, marginalised communities and populations in developing economies.

When surveyed, members of Thinking Ahead’s Climate transition working group agreed unanimously that a just transition and inequality are systemic risks which will impact the carbon transition and have the potential to derail it. Justice directly intersects with the global push for decarbonisation and climate resilience.

When it comes to responsibility for action, however, there is a stark division in perspectives on the roles and responsibilities for addressing the just transition. Approximately 25 per cent of the working group viewed the issue as the responsibility of governments, arguing that public institutions possess the necessary tools, authority and resources to address such complex social challenges. On the other hand, 75 per cent acknowledged that governments cannot tackle this challenge alone, emphasising that investors and private institutions also hold a critical role in shaping solutions.

However, despite this broader acknowledgment of shared responsibility, a substantial tension emerged when it came to action. The majority expressed an unwillingness to compromise their financial outcomes in pursuit of just transition objectives. This highlights a critical ethical dilemma for investment organisations: balancing fiduciary duties to maximise returns with the broader societal need to mitigate systemic risks. The current reality, shaped by the incentive structures that dominate financial markets, underscores a collective inertia that prioritises short-term gains over long-term systemic stability.

Sponsored Content

The reluctance to share the pain stems from several factors – current incentive structures, perceived lack of responsibility, unclear benefits, which are diffused and long-term.

Meanwhile, there are also cultural norms. Societal values that emphasise material wealth and individual success over collective wellbeing hinder the cultural shift needed to prioritise equity and sustainability. This mindset discourages actions that appear contrary to personal economic interests.

Addressing the systemic risks of inequality and climate transition requires a fundamental cultural shift – from decades of prioritising wealth accumulation to valuing well-being, relationships and societal harmony (and, possibly, the value of accumulated wealth over the long term).

Such a transformation is difficult and takes time. It involves redefining success and aligning economic incentives with sustainable and equitable outcomes. For instance, the integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) considerations into investment frameworks appeared to be gaining traction, but it ran into stiff opposition from the dominant mindset that prioritises financial returns. A meaningful cultural shift would require embedding principles of justice and equity at the core of financial systems.

The recognition of a just transition as a systemic risk is an important step, but it must be followed by meaningful action. Investors, along with other stakeholders, possess agency within the system. Through lobbying, advocacy, and innovative financial instruments, they can influence the rules and incentives that shape market behaviour.

By reallocating capital to support a just transition and by investing in climate solutions in emerging markets, they can accelerate the shift and contribute directly to equitable outcomes. Engagement with industries and policymakers allows investors to push for higher standards in corporate practices and shape regulatory frameworks that incentivise sustainable and inclusive practices.

Reconciling the tension between ethics and practicality in investment strategies requires a significant shift in perspective. Investors must recognise that justice and sustainability are essential elements of long-term value creation and move towards action. While the current incentive system reinforces the primacy of short-term financial returns, there is growing recognition that such a narrow focus is unsustainable in the face of mounting social and environmental challenges.

Addressing systemic risks, such as social inequity and climate injustice, demands a move away from short-term profit maximisation towards a broader, systemic approach that acknowledges the interconnectedness of economic, social, and environmental factors.

The interplay of all these factors in the transition to a sustainable economy will shape the trajectory of our collective future. The costs of inaction can be profound, so the question is not whether we can afford to act but whether we can afford not to.

Anastassia Johnson is a researcher at the Thinking Ahead Institute at WTW, an innovation network of asset owners and asset managers committed to mobilising capital for a sustainable future.

 

Leave a Comment

Pension funds confront the question of who owns AI

Pension funds confront the question of who owns AI

As the use of AI within asset owners evolves, organisations are grappling with the governance question of where the strategy and accountability sit. Darcy Song looks at the treatment of AI organisationally within a number of high-profile funds, including OTPP, AustralianSuper, CPP and Norges Bank.

Sort content by

CPP Investments on how AI redefines core investing roles and processes

CPP Investments’ trials show AI agents can handle key investment tasks end-to-end. In an interview, chief operating officer Jon Webster says tight governance, and the right human oversight, is the difference between breakthroughs and mistakes.

Proxy voting: Trump tightens the screws, but sole reliance on proxies rare

Institutional investors have played down the impact that President Trump's executive order to limit the power of proxy advisors will have on their investment processes, with pension funds suggesting proxy inputs only form a part of their voting decisions. However, the development feeds into an ongoing crimping of investor power.

Minnesota overhauls governance as CIO gets more mandate power

Chief investment officer of the $150 billion Minnesota State Board of Investment will gain authority to hire and fire managers without board approval in a governance overhaul approved this week that will sharply fast-track decision-making. The change follows an 18-month asset allocation study which has resulted in some portfolio finetunes.

HESTA prepares AI investment framework for total fund clarity

The A$98 billion ($64 billion) Australian super fund HESTA is laying the groundwork for a more systematic framework for using AI across its total portfolio, solidifying use cases in research, forecasting, risk management and private assets that all centres on the objective of “seeing risks earlier and clearer”.

CPP hires former AIMCo Singapore head to bolster TPA 

After hiring former CalPERS' investment chief Ben Meng six months ago, Canadian pension giant CPP Investments has added another seasoned pension executive, Kevin Bong, to its investment team, in a sign that the C$732 billion ($530 billion) behemoth is staffing up to focus on alpha and enhance total portfolio management.

Accountability, performance at the heart of Temasek’s three-way split

Singapore’s Temasek has unveiled its biggest organisational overhaul in more than a decade, splitting its investment portfolio into three entities to “sharpen” investment focus, boost accountability and align performance metrics. It came as the fund targets a 60/40 split between the “resilient” and “dynamic” assets to weatherproof its portfolio.

Previous