Boosting Sustainable Investing in Asia and the Pacific by ...

PO LICY BRIE F

Boosting Sustainable Investing in Asia and the Pacific by Public Institutional Investors

2 BOOSTING SUSTAINABLE INVESTING IN ASIA AND THE PACIFIC BY PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS

Disclaimer: The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this policy brief do not

imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations

concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the

delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Where the designation “country or area” appears, it covers

countries, territories, cities or areas. Bibliographical and other references have, wherever possible, been

verified. The United Nations bears no responsibility for the availability or functioning of URLs. The

opinions, figures and estimates set forth in this publication should not necessarily be considered as

reflecting the views or carrying the endorsement of the United Nations. The mention of firm names and

commercial products does not imply the endorsement of the United Nations.

The MPFD Policy Briefs aim at generating a forward-looking discussion among policymakers, researchers

and other stakeholders to help forge political will and build a regional consensus on needed policy actions

and pressing reforms. Policy Briefs are issued without formal editing. This policy brief on Boosting

Sustainable Investing in Asia and the Pacific by Public Institutional Investors is an expanded and updated

version of a section on boosting SDG investments by public institutional investors in chapter 5 of the 2021

edition of ESCAP’s Economic and Social Survey of Asia and the Pacific. It is prepared by Vatcharin

Sirimaneetham. Hamza Ali Malik and Sweta Saxena provided feedback and overall guidance. The graphic

layout was created by Pannipa Jangvithaya.

Please cite this paper as: Sirimaneetham, Vatcharin (2021). Boosting sustainable investing in Asia and

the Pacific by public institutional investors. MPFD Policy Brief, No. 120. Bangkok: ESCAP.

For further information on this policy brief, please address your enquiries to: Hamza Ali Malik

Director, Macroeconomic Policy and Financing for Development Division

Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)

Email: [email protected]

Tracking number: ESCAP/ 1-PB / 9


The financing needs and investment requirements to

achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

were considerably large for many Asia-Pacific

economies even before the COVID-19 pandemic.

The pandemic has exacerbated such challenges,

underscoring the need to explore innovative

financing and investment sources. This policy brief

explores how to increase investments in sustainable

development by institutional investors, which are

generally defined as organizations that pool funds

from other entities to make financial investments.

Different types of institutional investors have

different investment strategies based on their

fiduciary duties and risk tolerance level. The focus

here is on pension funds and sovereign wealth funds,

which are often public or quasi-public in nature.

Among the various policy options to increase

contribution to the SDGs by institutional investors

(UNEP, 2015), this policy brief focuses on two

policy areas, namely, amending investment rules to

boost sustainable investments and incorporating

environmental, social and governance factors into

investment strategies.

A. POTENTIAL TO INCREASE

SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENTS BY

PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS

IS CONSIDERABLE

The assets under management by Asia-Pacific pension

funds and sovereign wealth funds are very large. The

value of these assets amounted to about $8.5 trillion as of

end-2020, of which $5.5 trillion was in developing

economies. Despite economic disruptions caused by the

COVID-19 pandemic, the total asset value increased by

12.5 per cent from $7.5 trillion at end-2019. Among

others, developing Asia-Pacific economies with large

asset values of pension and sovereign wealth funds

includes China, the Republic of Korea and Singapore

(figure 1, panel a). As a share of GDP, these assets are

sizeable in such countries as Brunei Darussalam, Kiribati,

Timor-Leste and Tuvalu, primarily driven by revenues

coming from natural resources (figure 1, panel b).

FIGURE 1: ASSETS OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS

IN SOME ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIES ARE TREMENDOUS IN SIZE

a. Billions of United States dollar

b. Percentage of GDP

Source: Author, based on OMFIF (2021).

0 400 800 1,200 1,600 2,000

Taiwan, China

Russian Federation

Turkey

India

Malaysia

Republic of Korea

Australia

Singapore

China

Japan

Pension fund

Sovereign wealth fund

0 200 400 600 800 1,000

Nauru

Kazakhstan

Azerbaijan

Malaysia

Kiribati

Solomon Islands

Tuvalu

Singapore

Brunei Darussalam

Timor-Leste

Pension fund

Sovereign wealth fund


The potential to increase sustainable investments by

public institutional investors is considerable. In

addition to their large size in terms of asset values,

other factors include:

o First, the liability profiles of pension funds

and sovereign wealth funds are usually long

term, which makes them well suited to hold

long-term assets in development projects.

o Second, institutional investors have

demonstrated keen interest in contributing

to the achievement of the SDGs. In a survey

of 175 Asia-Pacific institutional investors,

the share of respondents who did not

believe in sustainable investments fell from

23 per cent in 2017 to only 10 per cent in

2019 (Schroders, 2019). About two-thirds of

the respondents also noted the increasing

role of sustainability among institutional

investors in the following five years. The

global surveys of institutional investors

show a similar trend.1

o Third, a survey of over 3,000 institutional

investors worldwide shows that there are

short-term plans to expand or make new

investments in emerging and frontier

economies, with infrastructure as the most

preferred sector among the public

respondents (Narayanan, 2018). Relatedly,

public pension funds and sovereign wealth

funds are also reallocating their assets away

from domestic bonds towards equities and

alternatives with higher risks such as real

estate and private equity (Hentov, Petrov,

and Odedra (2018), and Hentov, Elliot, and

Alexander Petrov (2020)).

o Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic not only

piques interest on sustainability among

institutional investors (FTI Consulting

(2020), and See Tho (2020)), but the low

1 In just one year after the SDGs were announced,

a survey of institutional investors worldwide

reveals that 75 per cent and 62 per cent of the

respondents believed the Goals would bring

reputational benefits and higher investment

returns, respectively (ShareAction, 2016).

interest rate environment also means that

fund managers may need to explore

alternative, higher-yield asset classes.2

B. WHAT IS HOLDING BACK

PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL

INVESTORS TO INCREASE

SUSTAINABLE INVESTMENTS?

Despite the large potential, the contribution of

institutional investors to sustainable development

appears limited. For example, in the world’s major

pension markets, up to three quarters of their total

portfolio is invested in liquid assets (such as money

market instruments) compared with less than 3 per

cent in infrastructure projects (United Nations,

2017). Similarly, institutional investors accounted

for only 1 per cent of investment in 163

infrastructure projects under public-private

partnerships in low- and middle-income countries

in 2015 (World Bank, 2016). A large part of such

financing still came from traditional bank loans.

Investment rules governing pension funds in many

economies are constraining their ability to invest

sustainably. According to OECD (2020), certain

pension funds in countries such as Armenia,

Georgia, India, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, the Republic

of Korea and the Russian Federation are not allowed

to invest in domestic equities or allowed but with

maximum limits and/or only in equities listed in

home or developed markets. For investments in

sovereign bonds, most of these countries also

impose maximum portfolio limits and/or place

different caps for bonds issued by central

governments and local governments in own and

other countries. For investments in corporate

bonds, often there are requirements to invest only

in bonds with certain ratings or those with State

guarantees. For example, in Hong Kong, China,

2 Nonetheless, Glossner, et al. (2020) shows that,

in the months after the pandemic began, pension

funds in the United States decreased their

holdings of listed firms rated with favourable

environmental and social scores.


there is no portfolio limits if pension funds invest in

investment-grade bonds, listed equities, and bonds

issued by listed companies. Overall, domestic

investment rules for pension funds appear less

stringent in such countries as Australia, Indonesia,

Japan, Maldives, New Zealand, Thailand and

Turkey. For foreign investments, portfolio limits

are, as expected, more restrictive. For example,

pension funds in India and Indonesia are not

allowed to invest in foreign equities and bonds. In

Hong Kong, China, at least 30 per cent of the fund

must be held in Hong Kong dollar currency

investments.

Corporate culture and related rules also explain

limited sustainable investing. These include, among

others:

o First, staff compensation packages

incentivize investment managers to

prioritize short-term performance over

long-term goals (Gottschalk and Poon,

2018). For example, according to a survey

by Aviva (2014), while 60 per cent of

pension funds are of the view that the key

investment period is longer than a year, up

to two thirds of them review fund

managers’ performance on a quarterly basis.

This is also the case when institutional

investors outsource their funds to asset

management companies, which have short-

term orientation.

o Second, many institutional investors lack

in-house expertise to assess the risks of

complicated projects, such as cross-border

infrastructure projects.

o Third, certain investment regulations limit

investments in asset classes that could

potentially contribute to sustainable

development. For instance, institutional

investors in many Asia-Pacific economies

are not permitted by law to invest directly

in real estate or infrastructure (Biswas,

2016).

o Finally, certain fiduciary rules and a home

bias in investment decisions, especially

among institutional investors in more

developed markets, often reduce

investments in foreign countries. For

example, pension funds in Japan do not hold

any debt securities and equities issued by

non-residents, while those in the Republic

of Korea and the Russian Federation engage

less in foreign-issued instruments relative to

investment funds and insurance companies

in their countries (figure 2)

FIGURE 2: SHARE OF NON-RESIDENT DEBT SECURITIES AND EQUITIES HELD BY INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS AT END-2019

Source: Author, based on OECD Institutional Investors Statistics 2020.

0102030405060708090

100

De

bt secu

ritie

s

Equ

itie

s

De

bt secu

ritie

s

Equ

itie

s

De

bt secu

ritie

s

Equ

itie

s

De

bt secu

ritie

s

Equ

itie

s

De

bt secu

ritie

s

Equ

itie

s

De

bt secu

ritie

s

Equ

itie

s

De

bt secu

ritie

s

Equ

itie

s

De

bt secu

ritie

s

Equ

itie

s

De

bt secu

ritie

s

Equ

itie

s

Investmentfunds

Insurancefirms

Pensionfunds

Investmentfunds

Insurancefirms

Pensionfunds

Investmentfunds

Insurancefirms

Pensionfunds

Japan Republic of Korea Russian Federation

% o

f to

tal hold

ing o

f in

str

um

ents

Issued by residents Issued by non-residents


Beyond corporate-level factors, the nature of

development projects also plays a role. Among

others, development projects often have long-term

maturity, which imply greater investment risks

and uncertainty. Long-term projects are also more

vulnerable to political risks, such as sudden

changes in a government and its policy direction.

More broadly, returns from investing in

development projects are usually underestimated

because their positive spillover effects, such as

greater transport connectivity and energy security,

are not fully taken into account.

C. AMENDING INVESTMENT

POLICIES AND RULES TO

UNLEASH INVESTMENTS FOR

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Relaxing some of the investment rules can channel

more financial resources into sustainable

development. As of July 2021, out of 31 Asia-Pacific

economies with available sovereign credit risk ratings,

18 are below investment grade (figure 3). Several other

economies are unrated. As a result, corporate and

project bonds in these countries are typically non-

investment grade because sovereign bonds usually

carry the highest rating in any economy. Thus, when

institutional investors can invest only in investment

grade securities, bonds issued by firms that promote

sustainable development in these countries, such as

climate-resilient infrastructure, will miss financing

opportunities.3 Meanwhile, partial relaxation of foreign

investment rules can help mobilize sizeable financial

resources for other developing countries. For example,

if only 1 per cent of assets managed by pension funds

in India could be invested overseas, this would amount

to 1.5 times the size of foreign aid that its neighbouring

country Nepal received in 2018. Similarly, in the case

of Indonesian pension funds, that would be 2.2 times

the size of Timor-Leste’s foreign aid.

FIGURE 3: SOVEREIGN CREDIT RISK RATINGS

ACROSS DEVELOPING ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIES

Source: Author, based on https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/rating.

Note: The ratings are based on Moody’s. (1) is prime, (2) is high grade, (3) is upper-medium grade, (4) is lower-medium grade, (5) is non-investment

grade speculative, (6) is highly speculative, (7) is substantial risks, (8) is extremely speculative, and (9) is in default with little prospect for recovery.

3 For example, sovereign wealth funds in Singapore and

the United Arab Emirates jointly funded a clean energy

holding in India, hence supporting India’s policy towards

green electricity (17 AM, 2019).

0

1

2

3

4

5

Aaa

Aa1

Aa2

Aa3

A1

A2

A3

Baa

1

Baa

2

Baa

3

Ba1

Ba2

Ba3

B1

B2

B3

Ca

a1

Ca

a2

Ca

a3

Ca C

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Num

ber

of

countr

ies

https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/rating


Adjustments in investment policies of sovereign

wealth funds could also mobilize additional financial

resources for sustainable development. For example,

take the case of Azerbaijan’s State Oil Fund. As of

March 2021, the Fund’s assets stood at $42.8 billion,

or about the same size of the country’s GDP in 2020.4

The portfolio is oriented towards fixed-income and

money market instruments (64 per cent of total

investment), developed countries (59 per cent), and

financial instruments dominated in United States

dollar, Euro or British pound (94 per cent) (figure 4,

panel a).5 While about a fifth of the Fund’s

investments are in emerging economies, they appear

to be large economies with strong a credit rating, as

only 1.3 per cent of its fixed-income investments is

in non-investment grade securities (figure 4, panel

b). Also, most fixed-income instruments held by the

Fund have a maturity of less than three years, which

is less well suited to long-term development projects.

In essence, adjustments in investment policies that

allow larger investments in countries and financial

instruments with higher risks would raise sovereign

wealth funds’ contribution to sustainable

development, although the impact of such

investments on portfolio risk should be carefully

reviewed at the same time.

In addition to relaxing investment restrictions, a

certain amount and share of investments could be

allocated directly to sustainable investments through

regulatory changes. In Europe, institutional investors

set the amount of funds that they would invest in

sustainable investments (Phenix Capital Group,

2017). In Japan, the Government Pension Investment

Fund, the world’s largest pension fund, allocates a

certain share of its investments to environmentally

and socially responsible investments. This resulted in

more than 300 per cent growth in Japan’s sustainable

financial assets between 2016 and 2018 (Bray and

Moon, 2019).

FIGURE 4: AZERBAIJAN’S STATE OIL FUND INVESTS PRIMARILY

IN INVESTMENT GRADE FIXED-INCOME INSTRUMENTS

a. Investment portfolio breakdown

b. Breakdown of fixed-income instruments

Source: State Oil Fund of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

4 For further information, see www.oilfund.az/en.

5 On asset allocation, while transfers to the state budget and

the central bank is the largest portion, the Fund has also

made sizeable investments in national development

projects, especially in social assistances to refugees.

Fixed-income Equities Real estate GoldAAA AA A BBB Non-investment grade


D. INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY

CONSIDERATION INTO DECISION

MAKING TO ENHANCE

SUSTAINABLE INVESTING

Asia-Pacific public institutional investors should

actively adopt the use of environmental, social and

governance (ESG) strategies. Strategies such as

social impact investments, direct engagements with

companies and full ESG integration into investment

analyses and decisions can have a greater impact on

sustainable development compared with passive

strategies, such as negative screening (e.g. when

firms avoid investing in sectors that are deemed

environmentally harmful) (Schlaffer, Hobisch and

Cavalli, 2020). A recent survey showed that, while

56 per cent of the sample institutional investors

from the Asia-Pacific region were already

mainstreaming ESG factors into investment

processes, that ratio was around 70 per cent for

European respondents (Schroders, 2019). Moreover,

together with ESG integration, negative screening

remains the most popular strategy among

institutional investors in the region. Globally,

impact investment is now the most widely used

investment strategy among ESG-active public

pension and sovereign wealth funds (UNCTAD,

2020). Another survey also suggests the use of

traditional, passive strategies among institutional

investors is expected to decrease over the coming

few years (McKinsey, 2019).

Various actions can be taken by institutional

investors to pursue more active ESG strategies.

Among others, a revision in corporate investment

guidelines can facilitate such a shift. For instance,

Thailand’s Government Pension Fund introduced

new guidelines in 2019 that adopted ESG criteria

across all investments, such as the use of a scoring

tool to assess investment opportunities in bonds and

equities (GIIN, 2020).6 Another factor is solid

technical capacity of investment teams, which is

required to prepare complex investment analyses,

such as quantitative investment models that feature

ESG scores. Yet, almost 30 per cent of Asia-Pacific

institutional investors in a survey cited that more

training would help increase sustainable investing

by their organizations (Schroders, 2019). Also,

nearly 40 per cent of surveyed institutional

investors in the region face difficulty in measuring

and managing risks when investing in sustainable

development (figure 5). At a broad level,

institutional investors should actively participate in

national and multilateral initiatives that promote

sustainable development. For example, in Japan, the

2014 principles for responsible institutional

investors were signed by 281 institutional investors

as of April 2020 (GIIN, 2020).

FIGURE 5: UNCLEAR DEFINITIONS OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

ARE THE MAIN CHALLENGES FOR SUSTAINABLE INVESTING

Source: Author, based on OECD Institutional Investors Statistics 2020.

6 Incorporating ESG criteria into bond investments can be

more challenging than equity investment because it involves multiple bond types and issuers (such as unlisted

companies and non-corporate entities) (Inderst and

Stewart, 2018).

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Cost

Difficulty in measuring and mangaing risk

Lack of transparency and reported data

Performance concerns

Lack of clear, agreed definitions ofsustainable development

Percentage of survey respondents

Global

Asia-Pacific region


Financial market regulators can also play an

important role. For institutional investors to

effectively incorporate ESG criteria into their

investment decisions, an important prerequisite is

accurate, consistent and regular sustainability

reporting by their existing and potential investees.

Indeed, the lack of clear, agreed definitions of

sustainable development (figure 5) and the

transparency of companies’ performance reporting

(Schroders, 2020) are often rated by Asia-Pacific

institutional investors as the main obstacles to

sustainable investing.7 In this regard, financial

sector regulators should seek to ensure common

ESG definitions and standards (at least at a national

level) and provide incentives for or legally require

ESG reporting by firms. Policy effort on this front

could be stepped up. For example, only 6 of 18

Asia-Pacific stock markets require ESG reporting

as one of their listing requirements and only half of

them offer written guidance and ESG reporting or

recently conducted ESG-related training

(Sustainable Stock Exchanges, 2018).

CONCLUSION

This policy brief examines how to increase

sustainable investments by public institutional

investors in Asia and the Pacific. To leverage the

largely untapped potential of pension funds and

sovereign wealth funds in Asia and the Pacific, it

calls for relaxing certain restrictions that govern

their investment policies. Public institutional

investors themselves should aim at adopting

investment strategies that are more SDG-oriented.

Table 1 highlights specific policy issues for Asia-

Pacific economies with development levels.

Finally, national policymakers and multilateral

development partners should strive for a long-

overdue common definitions and reporting

standards for sustainable investing.

TABLE 1: A SNAPSHOT OF RECOMMENDED POLICY ACTIONS

Possible policy actions

Less developed countries

• For pension funds, relax investment restrictions on domestic equities and government and corporate bonds

• For sovereign wealth funds, allocate part of investment for domestic development projects

• Increase awareness of sustainable investing

Emerging economies

• Relax restrictions on foreign investments and investments in non-investment grade yet SDG-oriented securities

• For institutional investors, adopt more active ESG investment strategies and enhance technical capacity

• For financial regulators, encourage or require ESG reporting and ensure common ESG definitions and standards.

Source: Author.

7 While potentially low financial returns of sustainable

investing are also a common concern, studies have shown

that that ESG-oriented investments can offer higher

yields. For example, Ben Ameur and Senanedsch (2014)

found that investing in Asia-Pacific equities that engage

with corporate social responsibility exhibits lower

systematic risk and risk premiums than equity

investments in the conventional market. Outside the

region, bonds issued by American companies with better

ESG ratings tend to yield higher rates of returns than the

market benchmark (Hoepnerab and Nilssona, 2017).


References

17 AM (2019). Institutional Intentionality: Aligning institutional investors with the global SDG agenda. 17

Asset Management.

Aviva (2014). A roadmap for sustainable capital markets: how can the UN Sustainable Development Goals

harness the global capital markets? Available at sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/

documents/10574avivabooklet.pdf.

Ben Ameur, Hachmi and Jérôme Senanedsch (2014). Socially Responsible Investments: An International

Empirical Study of Time-Varying Risk Premiums. Journal of Applied Business Research, 30(5).

Biswas, Rajiv (2016). Mobilising private capital flows for infrastructure development in Asia and the Pacific.

Discussion paper prepared for the first high-level follow-up dialogue on financing for development in

Asia and the Pacific, Republic of Korea, 30-31 March.

Bray, Chad, and Louise Moon (2019). Asia behind in sustainable investments, but attitudes are changing,

industry leaders say. South China Morning Post, 18 October.

FTI Consulting (2020). Stakeholder capitalism in the spotlight: how has COVID-19 changed institutional

investors’ approach to ESG? 8 October. Available at www.jdsupra.com/post/

10ileserver.aspx?fName=ec710b78-23aa-4ee4-84ac-55d2bd4d9c05.pdf.

Global Impact Investing Network (GIIN) (2020). Annual Impact Investor Survey 2020. 11 June.ner

Glossner, Simon, Pedro Matos, Stefano Ramelli, and Alexander F. Wagner (2020). Where Do Institutional

Investors Seek Shelter when Disaster Strikes? Evidence from COVID-19. ECGI Working Paper Series

in Finance Number 688/2020.

Gottschalk, Richard, and Daniel Poon (2018). Scaling up finance for the sustainable development goals:

experimenting with models of multilateral development banking. Geneva: United Nations Conference

on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

Hentov, Elliot, Alexander Petrov, and Sejal Odedra (2018). How do Public Pension Funds invest? From

Local to Global Assets. State Street Global Advisors.

Hentov, Elliot, and Alexander Petrov (2020). How do sovereign wealth funds invest? Less and less

contrarian. State Street Global Advisors.

Hoepnerab, Andreas and Marcus Nilssona (2017). No news is good news: Corporate social responsibility

ratings and fixed income portfolios. Mimeo.

Inderst, Georg and Fiona Stewart (2018). Incorporating Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)

Factors into Fixed Income Investment. World Bank.

McKinsey (2019). Institutional Investor Survey 2019.

Narayanan, Raghavan (2018). Mirage or Reality? Attracting and Retaining Institutional Investors in

Emerging Markets and Developing Economies Emerging Findings from an Independent Evaluation.

http://www.jdsupra/


Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum (OMFIF) (2021). Global public investors 2020. Available

at www.omfif.org/gpi2021/.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2020). Annual survey of investment

regulation of pension funds and other pension providers. Available at oecd.org/daf/fin/private-

pensions/2020-Survey-Investment-Regulation-Pension-Funds-and-Other-Pension-Providers.pdf.

Phenix Capital (2017). European institutional investors begin to commit to the UN Sustainable Development

Goals. 29 September. Available at phenixcapitalgroup.com/features/2017/9/29/european-institutional-

investors-begin-to-commit-to-the-un-sustainable-development-goals.

Schlaffer, Wolfgang, Manuel Hobisch, and Tommaso Cavalli (2020). ESG investing: the rise of a new

standard. Banking Hub. 18 March.

Schroders (2019). Institutional Investor Study 2019: geopolitics and investor expectations. Available at

schroders.com/en/sg/institutional-investor/insights/institutional-investor-study/.

_____ (2020). Institutional Investor Study 2020: sustainability. Available at

schroders.com/en/us/institutional/insights/institutional-investor-study-2020/sustainability/.

See Tho, Alexis (2020). Institutional investors say COVID-19 pushed ESG to forefront. Financial Management Magazine, 19 August.

ShareAction (2016). Transforming our world through investment: An introductory study of institutional

investors’ role in supporting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Sustainable Stock Exchanges Initiative (2018). 2018 report on progress: a paper prepared for the Sustainable

Stock Exchanges 2018 Global Dialogue. Available at sseinitiative.org/wpcontent/

uploads/2018/10/SSE_On_Progress_Report_FINAL.pdf.

United Nations (2017). Financing for Development: Progress and Prospects – report of the Inter-agency Task Force on Financing for Development 2017. 22 May. E/FFDF/2017/2.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) (2020). Trade and Development Report 2020: From Global Pandemic to Prosperity for All – avoiding another lost decade. (Geneva).

UNCTAD/TDR/2020.

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2015). Financial reform, institutional investors and

sustainable development: a review of current policy initiatives and proposals for further progress.

Inquiry Working Paper, No. 15/07.

World Bank (2016). Sources of financing for public-private partnership investments in 2015. Washington,

D.C.: Public-Private Partnership Group. Available at ppi.worldbank.org/content/dam/

PPI/resources/ppi_resources/topic/2015-PPP-Investments-Sources.pdf.

Get connected. Follow us.

www.unescap.org

facebook.com/unescap

twitter.com/unescap

instagram.com/unitednationsescap

youtube.com/unescap

linkedin.com/company/united-nations-escap

http://www.unescap.org/

http://www.facebook.com/unescap

http://twitter.com/unescap

http://instagram.com/unitednationsescap

http://youtube.com/unescap

http://linkedin.com/company/united-nations-escap

Date post:	02-Mar-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Boosting Sustainable Investing in Asia and the Pacific by ...

Documents