Roundtable '10 years of SDGs': Balancing impact, risk and return

January 12, 2026

 

CHAIR: Piet Klop, PGGM   PARTICIPANTS: Sven van den Beld, DNB Raquel Criado Larrea, a.s.r. vermogensbeheer Claudia Kruse, APG Asset Management Anna Pot, Rijksoverheid Paul Ruijs, Robeco Dirk Schoenmaker, Erasmus Universiteit, Sustainable Finance Lab, PFZW Rob van Tulder, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam

  

To what extent have the SDGs helped investors define sustainability and align their investments accordingly? Have they stimulated the growth of sustainable investment capital?

Paul Ruijs: ‘We have certainly embraced the SDGs as a blueprint for sustainable investing. The goals make sustainable development very specific thanks to the many targets and indicators, which allow us to link companies’ activities to these goals. It is a universal blueprint that all countries have endorsed. Prior to the SDGs, everyone had their own definition of sustainability. This framework prevents cherry-picking and forces an integrated approach. We have seen a huge increase in SDG investments, now amounting to around 45 billion euros, approximately 25% of our assets under management. But the market is now in a more difficult phase of the hype cycle, with less momentum and more focus on performance. A balanced approach to impact, risk and return can help with this.’

Rob van Tulder: ‘The transition from the Millennium Development Goals to the SDGs has been crucial: from a government-driven agenda to one in which the private sector was explicitly involved. The dashboard approach is incredibly important. We’ve had the hype, now the real work begins: implementation. There is still a tremendous amount of energy around this agenda worldwide. The SDGs are and will remain leading.’

Sven van den Beld: ‘From a supervisory perspective, we also see that the SDGs have created a common framework that helps many pension funds to embed sustainability structurally in their policies. The challenge now lies in implementation: not just policy on paper, but also demonstrable management of material impact and risk control. That requires clear indicators and transparency.’

Raquel Criado Larrea: ‘At the same time, we must continue to look at ourselves critically: I find that the SDGs often indicate why we should do something, but less how we should do it. The framework helps us to understand systemic risks, but translating this into concrete investments and indicators remains challenging. We often refer to them, but it remains difficult to quantify how much capital is actually being invested thanks to the SDGs.’

Dirk Schoenmaker: 'I think two things are needed. The strength of the SDGs is their holistic nature: they counter greenwashing and cherry-picking. But there is also a danger: many indicators are social or economic, which means that environmental factors are overlooked. We need to weigh the S and the E separately and give them equal weight. Otherwise, we appear to be making progress, while the environment is deteriorating.’

Van Tulder: ‘That's why the dashboard approach is so important. Everyone creates an index, a kind of unweighted average, and that's where the problem lies. We need to learn to weigh and contextualise. The agenda has not become irrelevant; on the contrary, now is the time to deepen it.’

How have the SDGs helped investors find a balance between risk, return and sustainability?

Ruijs: ‘The SDGs offer a lens through which to integrate an impact dimension into the investment process. This makes it possible to view risk, return and impact in conjunction with each other. This 3D approach to impact, risk and return is necessary to truly achieve scale and thus make a meaningful contribution towards 2030.’
 

Look broader – in blended finance, cooperatives, family businesses, public and social investments – and you can find a form of financing for every goal.

 
Claudia Kruse: ‘Investors need consistent and reliable information. That is why we have set up the SDI Asset Owner Platform together with PGGM, BCI and AustralianSuper to establish a data-driven, global standard for SDG investing. This has now been taken over by NetPurpose. This SDG information, by investors and for investors, enables investors to make more informed choices: which investments actually contribute and which do not? This way, the balance between risk, return and sustainability is automatically incorporated into the investment process.’

Van den Beld: ‘For us, that balance is essential. Risk and return are easily quantifiable, impact much less so. That is why we ask institutions to be clear about their assumptions and methodologies. It is also important to distinguish between dual materiality: on the one hand, managing external risks and, on the other, achieving real impact. These are two different perspectives that both deserve attention.’

Anna Pot: ‘But perhaps we should take a step back. The question was whether this 3D approach has helped investors. But the fact that we are even talking about 3D investing in a polarised and turbulent world says a lot. The SDGs are still our North Star: a shared compass that we have established with all UN member states, however different we may be. It is our action agenda. Thanks to these agreements, pension fund managers can say: we invest for a sustainable world, because otherwise we have no future. From my current role, I see that every member state is accountable for this, however difficult it may sometimes be. That is unique: it keeps us on track, despite all the geopolitical tensions. The SDGs provide direction and a language for cooperation between governments, investors and businesses. They make it clear why we are doing this. And perhaps even more importantly, the agenda has unleashed an incredible amount of creativity. Universities, knowledge institutions, businesses, NGOs, everyone is working, in their own way, towards the same North Star. Of course, there are sometimes less well-thought-out initiatives and marketing stories, but that is part of a broad social process. What matters is that there is a common framework.’
 

Focus is not a weakness, but a way to direct energy. If you choose a limited number of SDGs, you can really make an impact.

 
Is it a problem that some SDGs are left out because they are difficult to invest in?

Kruse: ‘I think it’s good when conscious choices are made. Dutch pension funds have all chosen their own approach, often based on what their participants consider important. That connection with the constituency whose assets you invest is crucial. Whether you invest broadly or focus on a few specific SDGs, as long as it is consistent and transparent, I think that’s powerful.’

Van den Beld: ‘Making choices is part of the process. For us, it's mainly about the consistency and governance of the choices made. If certain SDGs are chosen or not, this must be well substantiated – for example, because it is not material or because investing in certain SDGs does not fit within the risk profile. We mainly look at the process: how choices are made and how policy contributes to the realisation of priorities.’

Criado Larrea: ‘Focus is not a weakness, but a way to channel energy. If you choose a number of SDGs, you can really make an impact. That does not alter the fact that you have to monitor consistency with the other goals: they are all interrelated. We must continue to recognise that each SDG is part of the bigger picture and that they influence each other.’

Schoenmaker: ‘In practice, you have to make choices, but we must ensure that we remain aligned with our participants, otherwise we will lose support. Polarisation arises when technocrats make decisions without connecting with the people on whose behalf they are investing. And yes, some goals are more difficult to measure or invest in, such as biodiversity, but that is no reason to ignore them. We need to develop them, even if the indicators are not yet perfect. Failure to act can ultimately be more expensive: the cost of doing nothing.’

Van Tulder: ‘There is actually no SDG that you cannot invest in. It only seems that way if you define investing very narrowly. But if you look more broadly – at blended finance, cooperatives, family businesses, public and social investments – you can find a form of financing for every goal. The challenge lies not in the goals themselves, but in how we organise the resources and partners.’

Until now, the focus of SDG investing has mainly been on the public stock markets. But isn't the greatest impact to be found in the private markets? And where is the real additionality of our investments?

Kruse: ‘We have applied a jointly developed SDI taxonomy to both listed and private markets, because the framework works for the entire portfolio. There are many opportunities in the private market in particular: there, you invest for the long term and you can really show that it adds value. Moreover, as an investor in real estate and infrastructure, for example, you often have more access to information to assess what is actually happening.’

Criado Larrea: ‘In the beginning, SDG investing for us was mainly focused on equities. There was more information available that we could measure consistently. But the framework is actually very applicable to private markets. When you think in terms of transitions, you can directly finance and accelerate the necessary transitions with more targeted investments.’

Open access is really crucial. We can only carry out good sustainability analyses if everyone has access to the same basic information.

 
Schoenmaker: ‘To be critical here for a moment: we spend a lot of time proving additionality, but ultimately it's about making the right choices and supporting real transitions. Whether something is additional is less important to me than whether it contributes to the change that is needed. Think in terms of transition: do our investments help accelerate the transition to a sustainable economy?’

Van Tulder: ‘Exactly. There are all kinds of leverage and spillover effects that we are not yet sufficiently mapping out. The private market encompasses much more than just companies: cooperatives, family businesses, local initiatives. These are often at the forefront, but do not always know how to attract financing. The challenge is to connect these worlds and accelerate the transition there.’

Pot: ‘We also look at the real impact of government investments and development aid: what is actually changing? Pension participants and taxpayers want to understand why we are doing this and what the benefits are. You can explain this with concrete examples, not just with figures. It's about the visible difference that investments make in the real world.’

Van Tulder: ‘May I ask a question about this? For years, we have seen that public-private partnerships did free up money, but their effectiveness remained unclear. Has that improved in the meantime?’

Pot: ‘We must continue to improve in order to maintain a good understanding of the effectiveness of investments, without getting bogged down in bureaucracy. It's about learning from projects, working together and measuring more and more precisely what really works. Only then can we deploy public and private capital in a targeted manner to accelerate sustainable development.’

Do investors need hard data from the real economy to properly determine the balance between risk, return and social impact?

Schoenmaker: ‘Ultimately, it's about change in the real economy. We have become too reliant on ESG ratings and models that are mainly fill-in-the-blank exercises. But it's about what really changes: CO₂ reduction, biodiversity, social progress. That's exactly the idea behind our Futureproof Index: measuring what actually happens, with shadow prices and real economic effects. Only then can you see the real delta.’

Criado Larrea: ‘If we wait until everything is perfectly measurable, we will never act. Of course, we must continue to research and improve, but we must not let the urgent need for action depend on data. The impact is already visible in the transitions we support, not just in figures.’

Schoenmaker: ‘That's right, but we do need to make those transitions transparent. Take the protein transition, from animal to plant protein. That has enormous effects on land use and biodiversity. If we can measure those kinds of leverage points, we can steer policy and investments in a much more targeted way. Then you know where the real impact lies. And I think your ASR Dutch Farmland Fund is a good example, for which you and Rabobank have developed a framework with the open soil index, whereby landowners are rewarded with lower rents if they work sustainably. This improves soil quality and increases the value of the investment. It's a real win-win situation.'

Criado Larrea: ‘That’s right, I think the idea of transitions is very important: including our own transition as a sector. We must continue to innovate, develop new models and dare to experiment, even if everything is not yet perfect. That continuous learning and adaptation is precisely the catalyst for change. We talk about the transformation in terms such as “from brown to green”, but it's about the whole delta that we ourselves are bringing about, for all SDGs.’

Ruijs: ‘Within our organisation, we look at both the contribution of companies to the SDGs and their own transition. What goals have they set? How credible are they? And what do we see in the figures in terms of investments and progress? We try to quantify these changes as much as possible, but also to make them tangible, so that people understand what is happening in the real economy.’
 

There are many opportunities in the private market in particular: that's where you invest for the long term and can really show that it adds value.

 
Van Tulder: ‘I think it's very important to identify those leverage points where our investments can make a difference. At the same time, we must keep an eye on the barriers and stranded assets: where are we investing in declining sectors when we know that they are not sustainable in the long term? The real value lies in shifting capital to the emerging, future-proof economy.’

Criado Larrea: ‘The challenge is timing: being right is not enough, you also have to prove yourself right. The current market does not always move in line with long-term needs. That is why it is so important to continue to test our assumptions against what is happening in the real economy.’

Van den Beld: ‘We also need to realise that current ESG data often does not tell the whole story: time series are short, have limited representativeness or contain subjective elements. That is why we encourage better data standards and open access, so that we can increasingly extract ‘the right story’ from the data.’

The quality of sustainability data often leaves much to be desired. Is the available data now good enough to weigh up risk, return and social impact equally, or is the sector not yet ready for that?

Pot: ‘Data is never perfect, and it doesn't have to be. The main question is: is the data good enough to provide direction? In politics and diplomacy, we constantly work with incomplete information. Nevertheless, we make decisions, learn and adjust our course. The same should apply in the investment world: dare to act with uncertainty, as long as the course remains clear. We tend to wait until everything is measurable, but then you are lagging behind the facts. Data is a tool, not a prerequisite for action. The most important thing is that we ask the right questions: what do we want to know, why do we want to know it, and how does that knowledge help us to better steer towards sustainable impact? Once we have a clear answer to that, data quality will follow automatically. And there is also a human element: figures do not automatically convince people. What touches people are stories that show what the data means. It is the combination of qualitative insights and quantitative measurements that makes sustainability data powerful. This applies equally to policy and to investment.’

Schoenmaker: ‘I agree. We are getting more and more data, but not yet of the quality needed to really weigh impact against risk and return. Many figures remain superficial or incomparable. The challenge is to use data that says something about the real economy – about emissions, soil quality, social effects – rather than just about policy and processes.’

Van Tulder: ‘Perhaps we need to fundamentally change the way we look at what we call ‘markets’. We often talk about markets as if they were abstract, self-regulating systems, but in reality they consist of relationships between investors, banks, companies and communities. The dynamics of a market are determined by the players, their size and their mutual reliability. What I often miss is that investors and banks legitimise their role too much within those market dynamics, while it is actually about the quality of relationships and forms of enterprise. I have just returned from the Philippines, where banks are fined if they do not invest in small farmers. And what do they do? They prefer to pay the fine because they do not know how to invest in the local economy. At the same time, we are working with cooperatives there that are showing that things can be done differently, by rethinking entrepreneurship, risks and trust. The point is: we need to move away from the “performance illusions” of markets and get back to basics. It is not the market as a system that should be central, but the companies and partners that really create value. Some companies are simply more reliable, more sustainable and more effective in achieving social goals. That is what we should base our risk analyses on. Listed companies can actually pose more risk, because they are often further removed from those real relationships. So it's about re-evaluating the relational, not the purely financial perspective.’
 

Access to data should not be a competitive advantage, but a shared basis. Only when data is widely available can we correct, learn and improve each other.

 
Are we not unintentionally introducing biases into our investment decisions because we focus on what is measurable rather than what is truly fundamental?

Schoenmaker: ‘Yes, that's actually an almost philosophical question: is something only knowable if you can express it in a number? Or can you also have insight without everything being quantifiable? Look at how an analyst at JPMorgan prepares a valuation of a company; there are also choices involved in that. That's why you need experienced investors and analysts who understand business models and can judge whether a company really contributes to sustainability. It's not about the numbers, but about insight and experience.’

Kruse: ‘Exactly. It's about insight and expertise: about the ability and the courage to form an opinion. That remains a human task. And it's never black and white.’

Van Tulder: ‘I also hear a kind of fear in that question: that it's all becoming too complex, that we can't measure it. And then the reflex is to make it simple: to only look at what is measurable, at market figures. Whereas it is precisely the mixed, complex business models that are the most interesting. That's where the leaders with vision are, the companies that are really shaping transitions. Yes, it's complicated, but that's where it's happening. “Know what you invest in,” I would say. Understand the business model, the ambition, the context. Only then can you really feel the SDG agenda. Narratives and figures are part of that, but the stories are just as important as the data. Many family businesses and cooperatives already work this way: complex, but with a strong social motive. So you can invest in that too.’

Van den Beld: ‘As a regulator, we do indeed see that models and scores often favour SDGs for which data is available. This can lead to bias and even concentration risks. We therefore emphasise the importance of qualitative judgement alongside quantitative metrics. Supervision is not box-ticking: it is about understanding business models, transition plans and governance. Measurability should not be an excuse to ignore fundamental risks.’

Pot: ‘Yes, and that touches precisely on the bias you were referring to. If we focus too much on what is measurable, on data, on rankings, on lists, then we are missing a huge opportunity. Because innovation, the renewal that is necessary to achieve sustainable development, is by definition uncertain. You cannot fully measure or predict it. If we avoid that risk because it doesn't fit into a spreadsheet, we are stalling the engine of sustainability. And that would be a shame, especially for long-term investors.’

Ruijs: ‘A very valid point. There is indeed a clear bias in the metrics that are commonly used. Large companies with more extensive reporting receive better ESG scores than smaller companies, as do companies in developed countries compared to companies in emerging markets. This creates a distortion. We are trying to break through this with an SDG lens. Our own research shows that SDG scores provide a much more neutral playing field.’

How can AI and open access databases help to make fundamental sustainability analysis more accessible and efficient?

Schoenmaker: ‘AI can be a huge help in organising large amounts of data and making connections that we ourselves cannot see. But it remains a human task to determine what is relevant. Without context and a moral compass, things will go wrong.’
 

Innovation, the renewal needed to achieve sustainable development, is by definition uncertain. You cannot fully measure or predict it.

 
Criado Larrea: ‘I agree. AI can save us time, for example in reporting, and it can provide better insight into trends, but the interpretation must remain with people. We must guard against the illusion of objectivity: algorithms also have their biases. We cannot yet base investment decisions on them.’

Van Tulder: ‘We are working on a global open-access Living Wage database, sponsored by Unilever and other major parties. But what strikes me is that such initiatives are still too often approached as a market rather than as a shared public good. That is disappointing, because the idea was precisely to bring data together and make it available to everyone. It's a good example of how we should not end up with cooperation: everyone for themselves, instead of truly open and collective.’

Schoenmaker: ‘Open access is really crucial. We can only perform good sustainability analyses if everyone has access to the same basic information. As long as data is behind paywalls, sustainability analysis will remain a luxury product, only accessible to large parties with deep pockets. That hinders innovation and transparency. We need open data to test insights, to stimulate collaboration, and to create a level playing field between public institutions, investors and science.’

Ruijs: ‘I completely agree. Access to data should not be a competitive advantage, but a shared basis. Only when data is widely available can we correct, learn and improve each other. That is the only way to remain credible.’

Pot: ‘I completely agree. Open access is not only a technical issue, but also a moral one. Transparent and accessible data strengthen the trust of citizens, pension funds and policymakers. People want to know where their money is going and why it contributes to sustainable development. You can only explain that if the underlying information is open and verifiable. What's more, if we want to accelerate progress towards the SDGs, we cannot afford to lock up knowledge. Open access is cooperation in practice.’

How can we maintain the integrity of the holistic SDG model while pressure is mounting – particularly from the US – to reposition or repackage sustainable investment?

Van Tulder: ‘In the US, you see companies avoiding certain words under political pressure, but most are continuing with sustainability because it remains a strong business case. The SDG agenda is not disappearing; it is evolving. The challenge is to improve it, not to idealise it. It is still the best framework we have.’

Criado Larrea: ‘Circumstances have changed, but needs have not. Now we have to be smart about rhetoric and language. When you’re not allowed to talk about inclusion, other terms are used, such as belonging. That’s fine, as long as the values and actions remain the same. We mustn’t forget the ethical dimension, even if the vocabulary changes.’

Kruse: ‘At APG, we make it concrete and, together with our clients, translate it into themes such as climate, nature and working conditions. By making it tangible, you provide direction. Focus is not a weakening of the holistic model, but a way to keep it workable.’

Van den Beld: ‘For us, the starting point is clear: sustainability is not an ideology, but a prerequisite for financial stability. We position the SDG framework as a tool for managing long-term risks. The terminology may change, but the underlying necessity remains: without a viable economy, there can be no solid financial system. Supervision must focus on safeguarding that integrity, regardless of political dynamics.’
 

For us, the starting point is clear: sustainability is not an ideology, but a prerequisite for financial stability.

 
Schoenmaker: ‘Long-term value creation is a good alternative to ideological language. Without a liveable world, there is no return on investment. If we maintain the systems thinking that ecological and social transitions are inextricably linked to a liveable world, the SDG framework will implicitly remain intact.’

Ruijs: ‘The core of the SDGs will remain relevant after 2030: poverty, equality, climate, biodiversity. Perhaps we need to focus more sharply on those ultimate goals, but the holistic structure must remain. It offers a universal language and direction for the future.’

Any closing remarks?

Pot: ‘Sustainability is a joint task that goes beyond figures and reports. Data, policy and investments are means, not ends in themselves. What counts is cooperation between sectors, countries and people who believe that things can be done differently. We must continue to realise that the SDGs form a universal language in which everyone, from governments to pension funds and companies, can find their own responsibility. That shared framework is particularly important now, in a world that sometimes seems to be doing the opposite. As long as we continue to find common ground around that shared goal, we can make real progress.’

Ruijs: ‘The SDGs offer a clear framework for bringing together impact, risk and return. If we maintain our focus on that balance, and on real data from the economy, we can accelerate the transition without losing our compass. And yes, 2030, it is still uncertain what it will all look like, but the themes remain relevant. I think we should continue unabated.’

 

SUMMARY The SDGs have helped investors define sustainability and make it measurable. Now it is important to find the right balance between impact, risk and return in their implementation. The goals remain the most important global compass for sustainable investments, although the next phase requires greater depth, better data and more focus on the real economy. Open access to reliable sustainability data is crucial for transparency and cooperation. The integrity of the holistic SDG framework must be maintained, even under political pressure. The future lies in cooperation, long-term value creation and trust in shared goals.

  

Sven van den Beld Sven van den Beld has 16 years of experience in financial supervision and is Head of Onsite Supervision at DNB. Since 2012, he has held various supervisory positions at DNB, including supervision of pension funds, insurers and banks, and the integration of ESG into the supervisory framework. He previously worked at De Volksbank and Pensioenfonds SNS Reaal, and was seconded to the ECB several times for the EU-wide stress test.

 

Raquel Criado Larrea Raquel Criado Larrea has been working at A.S.R. Asset Management as Head of Responsible Investing since 2009. In this role, she is responsible for drawing up and implementing the responsible investing policy. Prior to this, Criado Larrea held various positions within ING Group and General Electric. She obtained a Master of Laws (LL.M.) from the University of Salamanca, including International Law at Leiden University.

 

Claudia Kruse Claudia Kruse is Chief Sustainability & Strategy Officer at APG Asset Management. She has been active in responsible investment since 2000 and has worked at APG Asset Management since 2009. Between 2020 and 2025, she chaired the SDIA OP, a partnership to define a data-driven, global standard for SDG investments. Kruse is also a board member of The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change.

 

Anna Pot Anna Pot has been National Coordinator for Sustainable Development Goals since 2024. In this role, she promotes the implementation of the SDG agenda within and by the Netherlands. Prior to this, she worked at APG Asset Management for 16 years, including as Head of Responsible Investment Capital Markets & Communications and Head of Responsible Investments Americas. She previously worked at Amnesty International and ING Investment Management.

 

Paul Ruijs As Impact Specialist, Paul Ruijs is responsible for developing Robeco’s impact frameworks and facilitating the integration of an impact lens into various investment strategies. Before joining Robeco, he worked at a start-up impact fund at the United Nations. Ruijs obtained his Master’s degree in Global Business and Sustainability from the Rotterdam School of Management.

 

Dirk Schoenmaker Dirk Schoenmaker is Professor of Finance at Erasmus University and Academic Director of the Erasmus Platform for Sustainable Value Creation. He is also co-chair of the Sustainable Finance Lab and a board member at PFZW. Prior to that, he worked at the Ministry of Finance. He is co-author of two textbooks on sustainable finance.

 

Rob van Tulder Rob van Tulder is professor emeritus of International Business & Society Management at RSM, Erasmus University Rotterdam, and academic director of the Partnerships Resource Centre. He is a fellow of AIB and EIBA and an elected member of Academia Europaea. He advises international organisations, governments, multinational companies and international NGOs on issues relating to sustainability and strategy.

Attachments

• FI-8 - 2025 - RT 10 jaar SDG's.pdf