Sustainable Investing and Fiduciary Obligations in Pension Funds: The Need for Sustainable Regulation

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q3 BUSINESS American Business Law Journal Pub Date : 2022-12-21 DOI:10.1111/ablj.12216
Dana M. Muir
{"title":"Sustainable Investing and Fiduciary Obligations in Pension Funds: The Need for Sustainable Regulation","authors":"Dana M. Muir","doi":"10.1111/ablj.12216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Investment practices can support sustainability efforts or undermine them. As one of the world's largest capital pools, pension funds have a particularly important role to play in sustainable investing practices. In this article, I examine the U.S. requirement that fiduciaries of private-sector pension plans must maximize financial returns without regard to the negative externalities those investments may create. Other countries, including South Africa, the original leader in sustainable pension investments, take a different approach. I make four major contributions in this article. First, I engage in a thorough literature review and identify the major strands of disagreement on whether U.S. fiduciaries may integrate ESG (environmental, social, and governance) factors into investment decision making. Second, I analyze whether the very different applications of fiduciary obligations (the implementing rules) on ESG investing in the United States and South Africa are attributable to the underlying legal systems. Comparison of common law and civil law shows that the underlying systems do not explain the differences in implementing rules. Third, I trace the source of the U.S. implementing rules to understand the motivations of the U.S. applications, and I do the same for South Africa. I determine that differences in the development of those rules provide the best explanation for their approaches. I conclude that legislative change is needed in the United States to provide stable guidance to U.S. pension plan fiduciaries. I offer a package of suggested reforms that could garner sufficient support for enactment.</p>","PeriodicalId":54186,"journal":{"name":"American Business Law Journal","volume":"59 4","pages":"621-677"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ablj.12216","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Business Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ablj.12216","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Investment practices can support sustainability efforts or undermine them. As one of the world's largest capital pools, pension funds have a particularly important role to play in sustainable investing practices. In this article, I examine the U.S. requirement that fiduciaries of private-sector pension plans must maximize financial returns without regard to the negative externalities those investments may create. Other countries, including South Africa, the original leader in sustainable pension investments, take a different approach. I make four major contributions in this article. First, I engage in a thorough literature review and identify the major strands of disagreement on whether U.S. fiduciaries may integrate ESG (environmental, social, and governance) factors into investment decision making. Second, I analyze whether the very different applications of fiduciary obligations (the implementing rules) on ESG investing in the United States and South Africa are attributable to the underlying legal systems. Comparison of common law and civil law shows that the underlying systems do not explain the differences in implementing rules. Third, I trace the source of the U.S. implementing rules to understand the motivations of the U.S. applications, and I do the same for South Africa. I determine that differences in the development of those rules provide the best explanation for their approaches. I conclude that legislative change is needed in the United States to provide stable guidance to U.S. pension plan fiduciaries. I offer a package of suggested reforms that could garner sufficient support for enactment.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
养老基金的可持续投资和信托义务:可持续监管的必要性
投资实践可以支持或破坏可持续发展的努力。作为世界上最大的资本池之一,养老基金在可持续投资实践中发挥着特别重要的作用。在本文中,我研究了美国的要求,即私营部门养老金计划的受托人必须最大化财务回报,而不考虑这些投资可能产生的负外部性。其他国家,包括可持续养老金投资的最初领导者南非,采取了不同的方法。我在这篇文章中有四个主要贡献。首先,我进行了全面的文献综述,并确定了美国受托人是否可以将ESG(环境、社会和治理)因素纳入投资决策的主要分歧。其次,我分析了美国和南非对ESG投资的信托义务(实施规则)的截然不同的应用是否归因于潜在的法律制度。英美法系与大陆法系的比较表明,基础制度并不能解释执行规则的差异。第三,我追踪了美国实施规则的来源,以了解美国应用程序的动机,我对南非也做了同样的事情。我认为,这些规则的发展差异为它们的方法提供了最好的解释。我的结论是,美国需要立法改革,为美国养老金计划受托人提供稳定的指导。我提出了一揽子改革建议,这些建议可能会获得足够的支持,以便付诸实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The ABLJ is a faculty-edited, double blind peer reviewed journal, continuously published since 1963. Our mission is to publish only top quality law review articles that make a scholarly contribution to all areas of law that impact business theory and practice. We search for those articles that articulate a novel research question and make a meaningful contribution directly relevant to scholars and practitioners of business law. The blind peer review process means legal scholars well-versed in the relevant specialty area have determined selected articles are original, thorough, important, and timely. Faculty editors assure the authors’ contribution to scholarship is evident. We aim to elevate legal scholarship and inform responsible business decisions.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Protecting the protectors: Whistleblowing and retaliation in the compliance arena The venture corporation Joke or counterfeit? Balancing trademark parody and consumer safety in the edibles market Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1