Ella Robinson1, Christine Parker2, Rachel Carey3, Gary Sacks1. 1. Institute for Health Transformation, Global Obesity Centre (GLOBE), Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia. 2. Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 3. School of Agriculture and Food, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Responsible investment (RI), in which environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations are incorporated into investment decision making, is a potentially powerful tool for increasing corporate accountability and improving corporate practices to address broad societal challenges. Whilst the RI sector is growing, there is limited understanding of the extent to which pressing social issues, such as obesity and unhealthy population diets, are incorporated within RI decision making. This study aimed to investigate the extent to which obesity prevention and population nutrition are considered by Australian institutional investors engaged in responsible investment. METHODS: A desk-based review was conducted of investment approaches of prominent Australian asset managers and superannuation funds identified as engaged in responsible investment. Relevant information on the incorporation of ESG issues related to obesity and population nutrition was extracted for each investor, drawing on websites, published policy documents and annual reports. Strategies were categorized as: (1) negative/exclusionary screening; (2) positive/best-in-class screening; (3) norms-based screening; (4) ESG integration; (5) sustainability-themed investing; (6) impact/community investing; and (7) corporate engagement and shareholder action. These strategies were compared across investors and by themes related to obesity and population nutrition. RESULTS: Eighteen of the 35 investors indicated that they applied investment strategies that considered issues related to obesity and population nutrition. The most commonly identified strategy was ESG integration (n = 12), followed by sustainability-themed investing (n = 6), and positive screening (n = 4). The ways in which obesity and population nutrition were considered as part of these approaches included relatively high-level general health considerations (n = 12), considerations around the healthiness of food company product portfolios (n = 10), and consideration of specific company nutrition policies and practices (n = 4). The specificity and depth to which RI strategies were disclosed varied. CONCLUSION: There is significant potential for investment decisions to contribute to efforts to address key social issues, such as obesity and unhealthy diets. Some institutional investors in Australia have recognized the potential importance of incorporating obesity- and population nutrition-related issues into decision-making processes. However, the extent to which these considerations translate into investment decisions and their impact on companies in the food sector warrant further exploration.
INTRODUCTION: Responsible investment (RI), in which environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations are incorporated into investment decision making, is a potentially powerful tool for increasing corporate accountability and improving corporate practices to address broad societal challenges. Whilst the RI sector is growing, there is limited understanding of the extent to which pressing social issues, such as obesity and unhealthy population diets, are incorporated within RI decision making. This study aimed to investigate the extent to which obesity prevention and population nutrition are considered by Australian institutional investors engaged in responsible investment. METHODS: A desk-based review was conducted of investment approaches of prominent Australian asset managers and superannuation funds identified as engaged in responsible investment. Relevant information on the incorporation of ESG issues related to obesity and population nutrition was extracted for each investor, drawing on websites, published policy documents and annual reports. Strategies were categorized as: (1) negative/exclusionary screening; (2) positive/best-in-class screening; (3) norms-based screening; (4) ESG integration; (5) sustainability-themed investing; (6) impact/community investing; and (7) corporate engagement and shareholder action. These strategies were compared across investors and by themes related to obesity and population nutrition. RESULTS: Eighteen of the 35 investors indicated that they applied investment strategies that considered issues related to obesity and population nutrition. The most commonly identified strategy was ESG integration (n = 12), followed by sustainability-themed investing (n = 6), and positive screening (n = 4). The ways in which obesity and population nutrition were considered as part of these approaches included relatively high-level general health considerations (n = 12), considerations around the healthiness of food company product portfolios (n = 10), and consideration of specific company nutrition policies and practices (n = 4). The specificity and depth to which RI strategies were disclosed varied. CONCLUSION: There is significant potential for investment decisions to contribute to efforts to address key social issues, such as obesity and unhealthy diets. Some institutional investors in Australia have recognized the potential importance of incorporating obesity- and population nutrition-related issues into decision-making processes. However, the extent to which these considerations translate into investment decisions and their impact on companies in the food sector warrant further exploration.
Authors: Gary Sacks; Lana Vanderlee; Ella Robinson; Stefanie Vandevijvere; Adrian J Cameron; Cliona Ni Mhurchu; Amanda Lee; See Hoe Ng; Tilakavati Karupaiah; Laura Vergeer; Mary L'Abbé; Boyd Swinburn Journal: Obes Rev Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 9.213
Authors: Boyd A Swinburn; Vivica I Kraak; Steven Allender; Vincent J Atkins; Phillip I Baker; Jessica R Bogard; Hannah Brinsden; Alejandro Calvillo; Olivier De Schutter; Raji Devarajan; Majid Ezzati; Sharon Friel; Shifalika Goenka; Ross A Hammond; Gerard Hastings; Corinna Hawkes; Mario Herrero; Peter S Hovmand; Mark Howden; Lindsay M Jaacks; Ariadne B Kapetanaki; Matt Kasman; Harriet V Kuhnlein; Shiriki K Kumanyika; Bagher Larijani; Tim Lobstein; Michael W Long; Victor K R Matsudo; Susanna D H Mills; Gareth Morgan; Alexandra Morshed; Patricia M Nece; An Pan; David W Patterson; Gary Sacks; Meera Shekar; Geoff L Simmons; Warren Smit; Ali Tootee; Stefanie Vandevijvere; Wilma E Waterlander; Luke Wolfenden; William H Dietz Journal: Lancet Date: 2019-01-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Davina Mann; Janelle Kwon; Shaan Naughton; Sinead Boylan; Jasmine Chan; Karen Charlton; Jane Dancey; Carolyn Dent; Amanda Grech; Victoria Hobbs; Sophie Lamond; Sandra Murray; Melissa Yong; Gary Sacks Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-12 Impact factor: 3.390