EISS Super has implemented State Street’s environmental, social and governance (ESG) tools to provide the firm with customised performance and risk management.
The risk analytics solution would help EISS Super assess the tonnes of carbon emissions produced by its investee companies as well as use ESG data sets to meet investment and reporting requirements. It could also assess how changes in allocation would affect the overall risk of a portfolio.
ESG had been a growing focus of super funds and, according to State Street, 62% of asset owners globally ranked strengthening their ESG integration across investment portfolios as one of their top three priorities over the next three years.
Daniel Cheever, head of State Street Institutional Services for Australia, said: “Asset owners are not only looking at ESG from a transparency and disclosure perspective, but also integrating ESG into their investment process to manage material ESG risks and generate alpha.
“Increasingly, investors analyse data beyond traditional financial metrics and it is important for them to have a holistic view of ESG drivers along with risk metrics our ESG Risk Analytics Solutions delivers.”
EISS Super chief executive, Alexander Hutchison, said: “We’re committed to delivering solid long-term investment outcomes for our members. We have a responsibility to consider, understand and manage all the potential risks facing our investment holdings and one of the risk categories we look at is ESG”.
Jim Chalmers has defended changes to the Future Fund’s mandate, referring to himself as a “big supporter” of the sovereign wealth fund, amid fierce opposition from the Coalition, which has pledged to reverse any changes if it wins next year’s election.
In a new review of the country’s largest fund, a research house says it’s well placed to deliver attractive returns despite challenges.
Chant West analysis suggests super could be well placed to deliver a double-digit result by the end of the calendar year.
Specific valuation decisions made by the $88 billion fund at the beginning of the pandemic were “not adequate for the deteriorating market conditions”, according to the prudential regulator.