Introduction

In September 2021, CFA Institute surveyed its global membership to capture views on integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors into investment analysis and decision-making. The survey also explored perspectives on the need for formal, government-backed sustainability reporting standards for publicly-listed companies.

Survey intent

The survey aimed to highlight investor views as regulatory shifts on ESG integration and sustainability reporting were underway globally. It sought to inform debate on whether regulators should mandate ESG integration in investment processes and whether public companies should be required to disclose ESG information under consistent frameworks.

Methodology

The survey was conducted in the final two weeks of September 2021 and distributed to 30,000 CFA Institute members and CFA charterholders. A total of 710 responses were received, equating to a 2.4% response rate with a ±3.6% margin of error. The completion rate was 93%. Responses were geographically distributed, with 61% from the Americas, 26% from Europe/Middle East/Africa, and 14% from Asia Pacific. Nearly half (47%) of respondents reported 6–20 years of industry experience, and 39% had over 20 years of experience.

Questions on investment manager views for integrating ESG factors

Nearly half of respondents (48%) believed ESG factors should be integrated only when financially material to investment decisions. Around one-third (31%) said ESG should always be integrated, while 18% felt ESG integration was unnecessary.

On whether regulators should mandate ESG integration, almost 80% opposed such directives. Respondents indicated that decisions should remain with clients and managers, reflecting a preference for free-market processes and professional judgement. Less than 20% supported government mandates.

Concerns about “greenwashing” were highlighted. Nearly two-thirds (62%) supported the introduction of a globally consistent investment product disclosure standard to ensure comparability and the integrity of ESG-related claims.

Questions on sustainability reporting standards for public companies

More than half (54%) supported mandatory sustainability reporting under regulatory standards, complemented by voluntary disclosures. Only 20% felt sustainability reporting was unnecessary. A strong preference (60%) was expressed for a consistent, global baseline of reporting standards, with flexibility for regional adaptations. Nearly 80% supported some form of global consistency over multiple jurisdictional approaches.

When asked what information should be reported, 68% supported disclosure of both financially material ESG risks to the company and the company’s impact on society and the environment (double materiality).

Approximately 69% favoured adopting formal regulatory standards before mandating sustainability disclosures. Respondents emphasised that regulators should create or endorse reporting standards, rather than simply adopting private-sector frameworks. Despite this, 38% were unsure, reflecting the complexity of existing approaches.

On assurance, 41% of respondents indicated that assurance should only be introduced after proper sustainability reporting standards are in place. Another 23% supported auditor assurance of reporting regardless of framework, while 19% favoured using third-party consultants. A smaller group (16%) considered no assurance necessary.