Move to in-house ESG causes salary boost
The rise of environmental, social and governance investing means firms are paying top dollar to hire in this area with salaries reaching $300,000.
According to Kaizen Recruitment, there was a trend for firms, especially superannuation funds, to set up their own in-house ESG teams rather than outsource them which was driving the increased demand for roles.
Including superannuation, a head of ESG was being paid as much as $300,000 a year while an ESG investment manager could earn $230,000.
Lower down, a senior ESG investment analyst could earn $170,000 and an ESG investment analyst could earn $120,000.
The recruiter recommended people could work in investment and then pivot towards an ESG specialisation as well as undertaking courses on ESG topics as this would give them both corporate and ESG experience.
The firm said: “The rise of awareness across society for ESG issues is having a broad impact and is permeating through to the corporate world. This trend has been accelerating and has forced businesses to consider the impact of their investment decisions.
“ESG roles can vary greatly in scope and depth depending on a number of factors. In some businesses, this has taken on the form of teams solely dedicated to ESG research while others have taken a broader stance that ESG issues should be a consideration for all employees.”
AUTHOR
Laura Dew
Recommended for you
The popularity of ETFs, which are approaching $200 billion in Australia, is a potential threat to the advice landscape if consumers opt to invest directly, according to this senior partner.
A former AMP financial adviser has urged advisers in the BOLR class action against AMP to object to the “unfair and unreasonable” $100 million settlement sum as the objection deadline approaches on 22 May.
Two Victoria-based financial advice practices have merged and rebranded as Forbes Fava Saville Financial Planning, as the firm realises the benefits of added scale.
The Financial Services and Credit Panel has made its latest ruling over a case involving an incorrect Statement of Advice.
