Global Governance Implications for Responsible Investing in Canada: An Analysis of Public Service Pension Plans Investment Policies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Responsible investing (RI) has become a hot topic in the global investment world and has gained momentum over the last decade.1 Attempts by global governance actors, such as the United Nations, to develop standardized policies for RI integration have been taken up by national governments.In Canada, for example, crown corporations are required to adopt the recommendations and disclosures of the Task Force for Climate Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) by 2022. 2 Despite growing international and domestic governance approaches for RI incorporation, in the summer of 2021, five of Canada's largest investment funds, including the management funds for provincial pension plans in both Quebec (QC) and British Columbia (BC) as well as the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, increased their investments in Canada's oil sands.3 This comes despite promises made by these portfolios to decrease their environmental impact and commit to RI, which, importantly, they note may come from exercising their voting rights to act as advocates for responsible business practices in the companies they are invested in, rather than simply divesting their funds.4 This paper will evaluate a number of public service pension plans from across Canada to understand how RI is incorporated into their investment policies.Statements of Investment Policy and Procedures (SIPPs) and Responsible Investing Policies (RIPs) for public service pension plans across the country will be analyzed.The three central questions are: How do public pension funds incorporate international and national best practices of responsible investing set by global governance actors into their investment policies?How are recent actions in line with their current investment policies?Why do variations in alignment with global governance bodies occur between public service pension plans?Findings from this preliminary sample show it is portfolio size, rather than geography, that increases specificity and action with regard to RI practices.These findings will be of interest to practitioners in the investment field seeking to incorporate RI into their practice.This preliminary data aims to contribute to the ongoing discussion on RI across public sectors by providing insight into RI integration across the selected plans. RI ContextRI is an approach to investing that incorporates environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria into the investment decision-making process.5 Although RI began as a response to stocks of companies that profited from vices such as gambling, tobacco and alcohol, 6 more modern RI sees investments made based on investor values, not necessarily withdrawn in response to specific negative actions.7 Much of the debate around current RI, however, focuses on both its necessity and its ability to produce returns for the investor.Supporters of RI have noted that RI such as selecting investments based on their ESG performance, has the potential to increase returns compared to choosing investments without such considerations. 8Opponents of RI suggest that utilizing RI screening inherently lowers portfolio diversity, creating unnecessary risk for investors.9 Regardless of its impacts, investment professionals have often noted that they are unequipped to incorporate RI properly. 10
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».