Sovereign Wealth Funds and Socially Responsible Investing: An Emerging Public Fiduciary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dramatic growth of sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) in recent decades has made them a significant phenomenon in global financial markets and raised the prospect of more enlightened investing that respects the environmental underpinnings of economic prosperity. Until the Global Financial Crisis of 2008, the movement for socially responsible investing (SRI) had been the only noteworthy dissenting voice to the traditional complacency about the financial economy’s wider impacts. That financial calamity not only unveiled a systemic malaise in the financial alchemy of the global economy but also highlighted its social and environmental sequelae. The rise of SWFs, several of which are legally mandated to practice SRI, gives hope that states may reclaim some public oversight over finance capitalism. The purpose of this article is to investigate the governance of some SWFs with a view to assessing their capacity to contribute to environmental sustainability. As public financial institutions empowered by a broader conception of investment that takes account of social and environmental factors, SWFs have the incipient markings of ‘public fiduciaries’. SWFs could provide a novel way to interpolate the public trust environmental responsibilities of the state into the governance of the financial economy. This article focuses on the French and Norwegian SWFs, which arguably have the most comprehensive SRI practices of all SWFs. Both, however, have struggled to reconcile their ethical and financial mandates into a coherent investment philosophy. But their putative fiduciary responsibilities to society through an increasingly long-term investing perspective suggest a new normative direction to reconcile these tensions and to thereby help institutionalize the principles of intergenerational equity and sustainable development in the context of financial markets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".