"If the label qualifying our profession could still change, the primary objective itself remains unchanged: to guarantee the durability of investments over time," explains Soliane Varlet, fund manager at Mirova (affiliated with Natixis IM).
Around mid-May, a study conducted as part of the VSV-ASG Investment Pulse 2025 revealed that only 15% of independent Swiss wealth managers had been systematically applying ESG criteria since the beginning of the year — compared with 20% in 2024 and 25% in 2023.
This decline is not unprecedented. And in the current political context — notably in North America — it could well continue in the months ahead. Has the world of finance already turned the page? Has it abandoned certain sustainability objectives? We discuss this with Soliane Varlet, fund manager at Mirova (affiliated with Natixis Investment Managers).
A year ago in Switzerland, many so-called "sustainable" funds were singled out for having invested tens of billions of dollars in some of the planet’s most polluting industries — without necessarily breaking the rules. What exactly is a sustainable fund?
At the international level, there is not yet a harmonized definition of the term "sustainable" as applied to investment funds. Some jurisdictions favor a transition-focused approach, while others only retain the notion of impact.
One option — the one we have chosen for our own funds — is to prioritize investments in players who make a positive contribution to sustainable development challenges. This approach is based on several minimum standards:
The rigidity of certain regulations or labels can sometimes prove counterproductive.
The problem seems to come from the rules of the game. How should they be adapted to ensure the emergence of truly sustainable funds — and guarantee savers that they are not unknowingly holding fossil fuels in their portfolios?
If one considers it essential that all players abide by the same rules of the game, it seems equally fundamental to us to preserve a certain flexibility for asset managers. Indeed, the rigidity of certain regulations or labels can sometimes prove counterproductive.
We support, for example, the exclusion of companies whose business models are heavily exposed to fossil fuels, provided they do not have a credible transition pathway. The growth prospects of these players are, in many cases, incompatible with international targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Conversely, a residual low exposure can be tolerated — provided the company in question is making tangible efforts to transition to renewable energy sources. For that, it is essential to analyze:
These elements make it possible to assess the credibility of its transition plan — which today seems to us more determinative for the decarbonization of the real economy than a strict exclusion policy based solely on an exposure threshold.
ESG criteria are increasingly criticized. Are you among those calling for their revision?
What can indeed be questioned is the lack of homogeneity and standardization of ESG indicators. We believe that integrating environmental, social and governance criteria brings real value — both in terms of impact and performance — provided it is put into perspective and integrated into the company’s fundamental analysis. Their use allows us to gain a detailed knowledge of the company, its model, and its real impacts.
That said, these indicators only make sense if they are consistent with the company’s business model. Recent regulatory efforts — notably through the CSRD directive — have helped strengthen the standardization of non-financial reporting, which is an important advance to ensure comparability between companies.
However, the flip side is that these indicators, even if unified, are not always the most relevant for assessing a company’s actual impact. A qualitative and contextualized approach therefore remains indispensable to draw a useful analysis from them.
Current withdrawals mainly reflect the difficulties for large players to commit coherently across all their assets while meeting sometimes contradictory client demands.
More broadly, with the withdrawal of the largest banks from the "Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative," can we speak of a blues in green finance?
Like many asset managers, we operate in a complex and constantly changing legal environment — notably in the United States. In recent months, considerable pressure has been exerted against collaborative engagement initiatives, such as "Climate Action 100+" (CA100+), the "Net-Zero Insurance Alliance" (NZIA) or "GFANZ" (Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero).
Beyond a simple feeling of disillusionment with green finance, these withdrawals reflect legitimate concerns: fear of legal action by authorities, or tensions with certain clients. They mainly reflect the difficulties for large players to commit coherently across all their assets while meeting sometimes contradictory client demands.
For our part, we remain convinced that joining these initiatives is not incompatible with the asset manager’s fiduciary duty. We intend to maintain — and even strengthen — our participation and advocacy activity. And if distrust of ESG approaches were to persist, we see it as an opportunity: to provide concrete proof that financial performance and the climate transition can coexist sustainably.
Does the word "sustainability" still have meaning in the world of finance?
The debate around terms like "green finance," "sustainable finance," "impact finance" or "transition finance" is far from over, and will probably continue to evolve as the market becomes more structured.
Just as we once spoke of ethical investing, then socially responsible investing, the label that describes our profession may continue to change. However, the primary objective remains unchanged: ensuring the durability of investments over time.
If we return to the original definition of sustainability, it is the ability to maintain a balance over time, meeting current needs without compromising those of future generations. The challenge today is to adopt a thematic approach when generating investment ideas, and to support companies that provide concrete answers to the major transitions of our time: demographic, environmental, technological, and governance-related.
Achieving the goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 depends largely on the massive deployment of climate solutions — notably through clean energy technologies. Whether we talk about ESG, green, responsible or sustainable finance, the name matters less than the concrete commitment to address risks that are now systemic: climate change, biodiversity loss, and growing inequalities.
These risks represent a direct threat to the stability of our economies and the sustainability of our societies. As legitimate as the debate over words may be, it must not obscure the essential: integrating sustainability issues into portfolio management is now a necessity.
Investing through a fund allows the investor to diversify both their exposures and their impacts.
What are, in your view, the best recommendations for investing in a truly sustainable way today? Should one favor a fund or opt for a direct investment in specific assets?
There is today a sustainable investment solution suited to each type of investor. It all depends on personal objectives in terms of risk and return, the amount invested, as well as specific constraints — whether geographical, fiscal or regulatory.
What we wish to emphasize is that investing through a fund allows the investor to diversify both their exposures and their impacts. Some solutions target assets linked to concrete themes: climate technologies, the circular economy, sustainable water management, public health or education.
A well-structured fund not only spreads risk, but also enables collective action: by voting at General Meetings, investors can influence companies’ decisions in favor of sustainable development goals.
This article has been automatically translated using AI. If you notice any errors, please don't hesitate to contact us.
"If the Federal Council is now considering abolishing the program — or at least withdrawing the federal contribution — it is mainly because of the windfall effects it generates," explains Philippe Thalmann, professor of environmental economics at EPFL.
"Today, 70% of our results come from abroad, while 70% of our investments are made in our historic service territory in Switzerland," says Cédric Christmann, Chief Executive Officer of Primeo Energie.
Interview with Philip Mäder, head of media relations at BKW.
At this stage, the investigations reveal an overvoltage problem that led to the failure, but do not yet allow its root cause to be identified.