This analysis and the research behind it is deeply flawed:

- Small sample size (not even 15 years)
- No adjustment was made for risk differentials between Standard and ESG approaches.
- The fact that the ESG approach “slightly” underperforms (no delta is given) confirms, if anything, that the analysis is inconclusive.
- Author is openly biased against a stakeholder governance approach.
- Fact: More than 90% of the over 2200 academic studies that have looked at ESG factors have positive findings.
- If you want well-balanced, candid ESG analysis from an undisputed ESG expert, check out Mary Jane McQuillen, featured in the Dec-5th-2019 Enterprising Investor.

Very disappointed that the CFA Institute would publish this type of analysis on its letterhead.