SFDR: Das grüne Etikett trägt nicht das Gewissen

Funds pool money in equities, bonds or a mixture of both, allowing investors to diversify and spread risk. There are active, passive and specialized real-asset funds, with the latter investing in assets such as property and renewable energy. Investors should carefully examine the cost structure, particularly any initial charge, as well as the choice of fund offered by their broker. AVL offers funds with no initial charge and uses the EDA metric to assess sustainability. How deeply this metric permeates its portfolios remains unclear. The absence of fees is not proof of sustainability.

The preference for sustainable investments has changed little since the pandemic. While 62 percent of people want to incorporate their ethical views into their portfolios, only 26 percent hold ESG investments. The main reason for this discrepancy is a lack of transparency, which 31 percent of non-investors criticize. Providers and intermediaries can profit from marketable labels; there is no evidence of how much they make.

ESG funds are increasingly investing in arms companies. This raises ethical and environmental concerns and heightens the risk of greenwashing. Where money flows into the arms industry, a green fund’s name begins to smell of smoke. Green lettering merely packages the dust more attractively. The Earth formed its soils over thousands of years; a fund label demands no proof. Disclosure remains a minimum standard. In the end, the market’s natural law applies: what remains hidden can neither be compared nor assessed.