Future Returns: Investing In The Circular Economy - Kanebridge News
Share Button

Future Returns: Investing In The Circular Economy

By
Wed, Feb 10, 2021 2:00amGrey Clock 3 min

The shift to a global economy based on reusing, repairing, and recycling—instead of making things, using them, and then throwing them away—is gaining traction as a sustainable investing theme.

Today, only 8.6% of the global economy is circular as the world consumes 100 billion tons of materials a year, according to Circle Economy, an Amsterdam-based global impact group.

Closing the loop on how goods are produced and consumed can address the problems created by depleting the Earth’s resources, in addition to the problems of pollution and climate change. According to the U.K.’s Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 45% of global greenhouse-gas emissions are generated by the creation and use of products and food, while the rest is generated by the use of energy.

Rising environmental challenges such as drought, fires, and flooding, in addition to changing consumer preferences and government regulation, are driving companies big and small to break away from a reliance on finite resources and to seek other solutions, says Jessica Matthews, head of sustainable investing at J.P. Morgan Private Bank.

That means, “by 2030, the circular economy could yield up to US$4.5 trillion in economic benefits globally,” she says. The benefits? “Saving 92 million tons of textiles in landfills, 1.3 billion tons of food waste, and 45 trillion gallons of water wasted through food production every year,” she says.

This multi-trillion dollar opportunity is leading growth-oriented, as well as sustainability-minded, investors to pay attention to this growing theme, as the push to create a circular economy drives innovation and new business models.

“Companies are innovating to tackle the challenge,” Matthews says. “That’s why it’s a growth story.”

The private bank currently has about US$12.5 billion in client assets invested in sustainable strategies across 100 funds on its platform, Matthews says. The assets are in all kinds of vehicles, from exchange-traded funds to private equity—and represent a range of investing approaches.

Matthews recently spoke with Penta about the potential for investing in the circular economy today.

The Business Case

What makes the circular economy an investing opportunity is that companies stand to profit more by reusing, refurbishing, and repairing products rather than sourcing virgin materials to make them, Matthews says.

Circular practices already are being used by clothing companies as well as technology and manufacturing companies, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation said in a September report titled “Financing the Circular Economy.”

In 2019, the resale market for fashion, including companies such as the RealReal, grew 25 times faster than the broader retail sector, while Philips, a Dutch conglomerate, reported 13% of revenues resulting from its circular practices.

In addition to major companies that are reforming how they make things—such as Unilever’s pledge to cut its use of virgin plastics in half by 2025—small companies are sprouting up to facilitate the shift, the report said.

Examples include RePack, based in Helsinki, which makes reusable, returnable packaging for products bought online, and Algramo, a Chilean startup, which allows consumers to refill cleaning products made by companies such as Procter & Gamble and Nestlé.

The move away from plastics for packaging is expected to create a US$700 million demand for corrugated cardboard in Europe and the U.S., the foundation said.

Investing Opportunities

According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation there are 10 public stock funds globally focused on the circular economy, either in full or in part, including BlackRock’s BGF Circular Economy Fund, the Geneva-based Decalia Asset Management’s Decalia Circular Economy fund, and BNP Paribas’s Easy ECPI Circular Economy Leaders UCITS ETF.

There were also at least 10 corporate bonds issued globally with the assistance of major investment banks such as Goldman Sachs, HSBC, and Morgan Stanley, with proceeds either in full or in part dedicated to circular practices, the foundation said. Issuers include Alphabet’s US$5.75 billion sustainability bond (with a circular economy component), Daiken Corp.’s JPY5 billion (US$46 million) bond, and Owens Corning’s US$450 million bond.

Private market equity, debt, and venture capital funds are also on the rise—there were 30 funds as of the first half of last year, up from three in 2016, the foundation said.

At J.P. Morgan, Matthews is evaluating the available public mutual funds and is looking to bring one on its platform. Since many of the companies involved in the circular economy today are in niche businesses, “you have to be careful about how limiting you are in your universe,” she says.

Public funds focused broadly on companies with the best environmental, social, and governance practices also buy stocks of corporations on the leading edge of the circular economy, even if these companies—such as Unilever, Adidas, and Nike —don’t represent a distinct circular economy story.

J.P. Morgan is also looking at private markets. Similarly, the bank has found more opportunities to invest in the circular economy through funds that look at sustainability broadly, Matthews says. For instance, the bank has invested with a private venture firm focused on sustainability and climate solutions that has invested in a company working to create cold-pack packaging with less Styrofoam.

“Where [the circular economy] becomes more widely adopted and seen is in being favoured in broader sustainability portfolios,” Matthews says, adding that ESG managers doing fundamental research today will find themselves looking at some of the trends around circular, because “they are still underappreciated by the market.”



MOST POPULAR

What a quarter-million dollars gets you in the western capital.

Alexandre de Betak and his wife are focusing on their most personal project yet.

Related Stories
Money
Worldwide Efforts to Reverse the Baby Shortage Are Falling Flat
By CHELSEY DULANEY 15/10/2024
Money
Why Iconic Brands Struggle With Innovation
By LISA WARD 15/10/2024
Money
The Trick to Bragging in a Job Interview
By ALINA DIZIK 14/10/2024

Subsidised minivans, no income taxes: Countries have rolled out a range of benefits to encourage bigger families, with no luck

By CHELSEY DULANEY
Tue, Oct 15, 2024 7 min

Imagine if having children came with more than $150,000 in cheap loans, a subsidised minivan and a lifetime exemption from income taxes.

Would people have more kids? The answer, it seems, is no.

These are among the benefits—along with cheap child care, extra vacation and free fertility treatments—that have been doled out to parents in different parts of Europe, a region at the forefront of the worldwide baby shortage. Europe’s overall population shrank during the pandemic and is on track to contract by about 40 million by 2050, according to United Nations statistics.

Birthrates have been falling across the developed world since the 1960s. But the decline hit Europe harder and faster than demographers expected—a foreshadowing of the sudden drop in the U.S. fertility rate in recent years.

Reversing the decline in birthrates has become a national priority among governments worldwide, including in China and Russia , where Vladimir Putin declared 2024 “the year of the family.” In the U.S., both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have pledged to rethink the U.S.’s family policies . Harris wants to offer a $6,000 baby bonus. Trump has floated free in vitro fertilisation and tax deductions for parents.

Europe and other demographically challenged economies in Asia such as South Korea and Singapore have been pushing back against the demographic tide with lavish parental benefits for a generation. Yet falling fertility has persisted among nearly all age groups, incomes and education levels. Those who have many children often say they would have them even without the benefits. Those who don’t say the benefits don’t make enough of a difference.

Two European countries devote more resources to families than almost any other nation: Hungary and Norway. Despite their programs, they have fertility rates of 1.5 and 1.4 children for every woman, respectively—far below the replacement rate of 2.1, the level needed to keep the population steady. The U.S. fertility rate is 1.6.

Demographers suggest the reluctance to have kids is a fundamental cultural shift rather than a purely financial one.

“I used to say to myself, I’m too young. I have to finish my bachelor’s degree. I have to find a partner. Then suddenly I woke up and I was 28 years old, married, with a car and a house and a flexible job and there were no more excuses,” said Norwegian Nancy Lystad Herz. “Even though there are now no practical barriers, I realised that I don’t want children.”

The Hungarian model

Both Hungary and Norway spend more than 3% of GDP on their different approaches to promoting families—more than the amount they spend on their militaries, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Hungary says in recent years its spending on policies for families has exceeded 5% of GDP. The U.S. spends around 1% of GDP on family support through child tax credits and programs aimed at low-income Americans.

Hungary’s subsidised housing loan program has helped almost 250,000 families buy or upgrade their homes, the government says. Orsolya Kocsis, a 28-year-old working in human resources, knows having kids would help her and her husband buy a larger house in Budapest, but it isn’t enough to change her mind about not wanting children.

“If we were to say we’ll have two kids, we could basically buy a new house tomorrow,” she said. “But morally, I would not feel right having brought a life into this world to buy a house.”

Promoting baby-making, known as pro natalism, is a key plank of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán ’s broader populist agenda . Hungary’s biennial Budapest Demographic Summit has become a meeting ground for prominent conservative politicians and thinkers. Former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson and JD Vance, Trump’s vice president pick, have lauded Orbán’s family policies.

Orbán portrays having children inside what he has called a “traditional” family model as a national duty, as well as an alternative to immigration for growing the population. The benefits for child-rearing in Hungary are mostly reserved for married, heterosexual, middle-class couples. Couples who divorce lose subsidised interest rates and in some cases have to pay back the support.

Hungary’s population, now less than 10 million, has been shrinking since the 1980s. The country is about the size of Indiana.

“Because there are so few of us, there’s always this fear that we are disappearing,” said Zsuzsanna Szelényi, program director at the CEU Democracy Institute and author of a book on Orbán.

Hungary’s fertility rate collapsed after the fall of the Soviet Union and by 2010 was down to 1.25 children for every woman. Orbán, a father of five, and his Fidesz party swept back into power that year after being ousted in the early 2000s. He expanded the family support system over the next decade.

Hungary’s fertility rate rose to 1.6 children for every woman in 2021. Ivett Szalma, an associate professor at Corvinus University of Budapest, said that like in many other countries, women in Hungary who had delayed having children after the global financial crisis were finally catching up.

Then progress stalled. Hungary’s fertility rate has fallen for the past two years. Around 51,500 babies have been born there this year through August, a 10% drop compared with the same period last year. Many Hungarian women cite underfunded public health and education systems and difficulties balancing work and family as part of their hesitation to have more children.

Anna Nagy, a 35-year-old former lawyer, had her son in January 2021. She received a loan of about $27,300 that she didn’t have to start paying back until he turned 3. Nagy had left her job before getting pregnant but still received government-funded maternity payments, equal to 70% of her former salary, for the first two years and a smaller amount for a third year.

She used to think she wanted two or three kids, but now only wants one. She is frustrated at the implication that demographic challenges are her responsibility to solve. Economists point to increased immigration and a higher retirement age as other offsets to the financial strains on government budgets from a declining population.

“It’s not our duty as Hungarian women to keep the nation alive,” she said.

Big families

Hungary is especially generous to families who have several children, or who give birth at younger ages. Last year, the government announced it would restrict the loan program used by Nagy to women under 30. Families who pledge to have three or more children can get more than $150,000 in subsidised loans. Other benefits include a lifetime exemption from personal taxes for mothers with four or more kids, and up to seven extra annual vacation days for both parents.

Under another program that’s now expired, nearly 30,000 families used a subsidy to buy a minivan, the government said.

Critics of Hungary’s family policies say the money is wasted on people who would have had large families anyway. The government has also been criticised for excluding groups such as the minority Roma population and poorer Hungarians. Bank accounts, credit histories and a steady employment history are required for many of the incentives.

Orbán’s press office didn’t respond to requests for comment. Tünde Fűrész, head of a government-backed demographic research institute, disagreed that the policies are exclusionary and said the loans were used more heavily in economically depressed areas.

Eszter Gerencsér and her husband, Tamas, always wanted a big family. Photo: Akos Stiller for WSJ

Government programs weren’t a determining factor for Eszter Gerencsér, 37, who said she and her husband always wanted a big family. They have four children, ages 3 to 10.

They received about $62,800 in low-interest loans through government programs and $35,500 in grants. They used the money to buy and renovate a house outside of Budapest. After she had her fourth child, the government forgave $11,000 of the debt. Her family receives a monthly payment of about $40 a month for each child.

Most Hungarian women stay home with their children until they turn 2, after which maternity payments are reduced. Publicly run nurseries are free for large families like hers. Gerencsér worked on and off between her pregnancies and returned full-time to work, in a civil-service job, earlier this year.

She still thinks Hungarian society is stacked against mothers and said she struggled to find a job because employers worried she would have to take lots of time off.

The country’s international reputation as family-friendly is “what you call good marketing,” she said.

Gina Ekholt said the government’s policies have helped offset much of the costs of having a child. Photo: Signe Fuglesteg Luksengard for WSJ

Nordic largesse

Norway has been incentivising births for decades with generous parental leave and subsidised child care. New parents in Norway can share nearly a year of fully paid leave, or around 14 months at 80% pay. More than three months are reserved for fathers to encourage more equal caregiving. Mothers are entitled to take at least an hour at work to breast-feed or pump.

The government’s goal has never been explicitly to encourage people to have more children, but instead to make it easier for women to balance careers and children, said Trude Lappegard, a professor who researches demography at the University of Oslo. Norway doesn’t restrict benefits for unmarried parents or same-sex couples.

Its fertility rate of 1.4 children per woman has steadily fallen from nearly 2 in 2009. Unlike Hungary, Norway’s population is still growing for now, due mostly to immigration.

“It is difficult to say why the population is having fewer children,” Kjersti Toppe, the Norwegian Minister of Children and Families, said in an email. She said the government has increased monthly payments for parents and has formed a committee to investigate the baby bust and ways to reverse it.

More women in Norway are childless or have only one kid. The percentage of 45-year-old women with three or more children fell to 27.5% last year from 33% in 2010. Women are also waiting longer to have children—the average age at which women had their first child reached 30.3 last year. The global surge in housing costs and a longer timeline for getting established in careers likely plays a role, researchers say. Older first-time mothers can face obstacles: Women 35 and older are at higher risk of infertility and pregnancy complications.

Gina Ekholt, 39, said the government’s policies have helped offset much of the costs of having a child and allowed her to maintain her career as a senior adviser at the nonprofit Save the Children Norway. She had her daughter at age 34 after a round of state-subsidised IVF that cost about $1,600. She wanted to have more children but can’t because of fertility issues.

She receives a monthly stipend of about $160 a month, almost fully offsetting a $190 monthly nursery fee.

“On the economy side, it hasn’t made a bump. What’s been difficult for me is trying to have another kid,” she said. “The notion that we should have more kids, and you’re very selfish if you have only had one…those are the things that took a toll on me.”

Her friend Ewa Sapieżyńska, a 44-year-old Polish-Norwegian writer and social scientist with one son, has helped her see the upside of the one-child lifestyle. “For me, the decision is not about money. It’s about my life,” she said.