Skip to content

If you’re a regular reader of financial media, you’ve likely noticed some headlines on ESG—environmental, social and governance—investing and sustainable investing on your feed in recent months. Depending on which pieces you’ve chosen to read, interest in sustainable investing is either dead, floundering or thriving. Between these conflicting proclamations, what should an investor believe?

Sustainable Investing Means More Than Just ESG Equities ETFs

To address the confusion, let’s first revisit the aphorism “ESG means different things to different people.” As defined by the Global Sustainable Investors Alliance in partnership with the CFA Institute and the Principles of Responsible Investment (PRI), sustainable investing can be differentiated across five categories: 1) screening (a.k.a., Socially Responsible Investing (SRI)), 2) ESG integration, 3) thematic investing, 4) stewardship and 5) impact investing. While an investment mandate may fall into more than one of these categories, each is distinctly different in terms of technique and objectives. As a result, lumping the different types together when analyzing market trends and investment performance may lead to unmeaningful or even spurious conclusions.

To illustrate, many news stories focus on ESG equities ETFs. A significant number of these are ESG integration funds and are typically passively managed against benchmarks constructed around MSCI ratings. Many of the passive ESG ETFs are heavily tilted toward technology and exclude energy, which has resulted in significant performance dispersion in recent years. Other ESG ETFs are thematic funds that are narrowly focused on specific sectors and technologies rather than a diverse set of issuers. These integration and thematic funds are not necessarily representative of other funds with specific sustainable investing objectives.

Furthermore, sustainable investing is not limited merely to corporations issuing publicly traded stock. Within fixed-income, the investment opportunity set also includes private corporate issuers, sovereigns and quasi-sovereigns, municipal bonds, and mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities.

Sustainable Bond Fund Flows Remain Robust1

Next, let’s look at the data on fund flows. We emphasize that trends in sustainable investments should be analyzed in the context of the overall market. If money is flowing into of an asset class overall, then it should not be surprising if the sustainable fund segment of that asset class is also growing, and vice versa.

As yields have moved attractively higher this year, investors have increased their fixed-income allocations in response, adding $350.5 billion, or 3.8% of fixed-income fund assets under management (AUM), to bond funds year to date (YTD) through Q3, according to Barclays (Exhibit 1). In comparison, ESG-labeled bond funds have attracted $25.5 billion, or 5.2%, in the same time period. At a more granular level, sustainable funds have outperformed the broader sector in the EUR corporate, USD corporate, global corporate, emerging market credit and USD aggregate subcategories, and underperformed in the GBP corporate and EUR aggregate subcategories. Market share varies by region, with ESG-labeled USD corporate funds comprising only 3.5% of the sector, versus 34.1% for the EUR corporate fund sector.

Exhibit 1: Fixed-Income Fund Flows

Source: Barclays. As of 30 September 23. Fund categories listed include EUR Corporate, USD Corporate, GBP Corporate, Global Corporate, Emerging Market Credit, EUR Aggregate, USD Aggregate and All Bond Funds.

ESG-Labeled Bond Market Continues to Grow

According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, ESG-labeled bond issuance this year through October 31 stands at $900.5 billion, up 5.6% relative to the same time period last year. For reference, global investment-grade issuance YTD was down 2% at $1.08 trillion.2 We would also note that green bonds, which are the largest and most established category, experienced a strong increase, up 13.1% year-over-year.

Again, issuance trends differ across credit quality and geography, with the strongest representation in the EUR investment-grade market, where 15.4% of the Index is ESG labeled, while the US High Yield Index contains only 2.1% in ESG-labeled bonds.

ESG-Labeled Bond Issuance Is Correlated With Better Issuer Performance Overall

ESG-labeled bonds trade at a premium, or “greenium,” relative to non-ESG bonds, suggesting that there is strong investor demand for sustainable fixed-income investments. Western Asset’s view is that the greenium is largely driven by supply/demand imbalances, as the credit quality is identical between an issuer’s ESG-labeled and traditional bonds. Controlling for issuer, this premium has ranged from 0 to -5 bps for green, social and sustainable bonds (all of which are “use of proceeds” bonds that finance green and/or social projects exclusively), whereas it has moved from a premium to a discount for sustainability-linked bonds.3

Given that use of proceeds bonds tend to be issued at tighter spreads than their non-ESG counterparts, you may wonder whether they have generated lower returns as a result. Some superficial analyses compare the returns of a corporate green bond index with a broad corporate index; however, this methodology is inappropriate for two reasons. First, green bond indices lack sector diversification and are more weighted toward financials and utilities than broader indices. Second, green bond indices tend to be comprised of longer maturity bonds than broader indices.

In contrast, a proper comparison of ESG and non-ESG bond performance adjusts for issuer, sector and maturity, as does HSBC. Their researchers found that after issuing ESG-labeled bonds, issuers benefit from what they term a “halo effect,” in which both the ESG-labeled and non-labeled bonds of that issuer outperform their peers.4 This effect has been consistent since HSBC began its analysis in 2021.5 These trends support our belief that a significant contingent of investors are seeking to invest in issuers committed to sustainability.

Conclusion

Putting the facts all together, we conclude that sustainable investing in fixed-income is far from its denouement. Western Asset will continue to partner with its clients to help them achieve their financial as well as sustainable investment goals.



Copyright ©2025. Franklin Templeton. All rights reserved.

This document is intended to be of general interest only. This document should not be construed as individual investment advice or offer or solicitation to buy, sell or hold any shares of fund. The information provided for any individual security mentioned is not a sufficient basis upon which to make an investment decision. Investments involves risks. Value of investments may go up as well as down and past performance is not an indicator or a guarantee of future performance. The investment returns are calculated on NAV to NAV basis, taking into account of reinvestments and capital gain or loss. The investment returns are denominated in stated currency, which may be a foreign currency other than USD and HKD (“other foreign currency”). US/HK dollar-based investors are therefore exposed to fluctuations in the US/HK dollar / other foreign currency exchange rate. Please refer to the offering documents for further details, including the risk factors.

The data, comments, opinions, estimates and other information contained herein may be subject to change without notice. There is no guarantee that an investment product will meet its objective and any forecasts expressed will be realized. Performance may also be affected by currency fluctuations. Reduced liquidity may have a negative impact on the price of the assets. Currency fluctuations may affect the value of overseas investments. Where an investment product invests in emerging markets, the risks can be greater than in developed markets. Where an investment product invests in derivative instruments, this entails specific risks that may increase the risk profile of the investment product. Where an investment product invests in a specific sector or geographical area, the returns may be more volatile than a more diversified investment product. Franklin Templeton accepts no liability whatsoever for any direct or indirect consequential loss arising from use of this document or any comment, opinion or estimate herein. This document may not be reproduced, distributed or published without prior written permission from Franklin Templeton.

Any share class with “(Hedged)” in its name will attempt to hedge the currency risk between the base currency of the Fund and the currency of the share class, although there can be no guarantee that it will be successful in doing so. In some cases, investors may be subject to additional risks.

Please contact your financial advisor if you are in doubt of any information contained herein.

For UCITS funds only: In addition, a summary of investor rights is available from here. The fund(s)/ sub-fund(s) are notified for marketing in various regions under the UCITS Directive. The fund(s)/ sub-fund(s) can terminate such notifications for any share class and/or sub-fund at any time by using the process contained in Article 93a of the UCITS Directive.

For AIFMD funds only: In addition, a summary of investor rights is available from here. The fund(s)/ sub-fund(s) are notified for marketing in various regions under the AIFMD Directive. The fund(s)/ sub-fund(s) can terminate such notifications for any share class and/or sub-fund at any time by using the process contained in Article 32a of the AIFMD Directive.

For the avoidance of doubt, if you make a decision to invest, you will be buying units/shares in the fund(s)/ sub-fund(s) and will not be investing directly in the underlying assets of the fund(s)/ sub-fund(s).

This document is issued by Franklin Templeton Investments (Asia) Limited and has not been reviewed by the Securities and Futures Commission of Hong Kong.

Unless stated otherwise, all information is as of the date stated above. Source: Franklin Templeton.

CFA® and Chartered Financial Analyst® are trademarks owned by CFA Institute.