Putting The Ethics Into Investment

 | Oct 13, 2017 16:03

Originally published by OpenMarkets

Ethics and investment have not always been natural bed partners. Money has been, and continues to be, made from companies engaged in businesses some perceive as unethical. Companies that manufacture tobacco, booze and weapons. Those that employ children in developing countries or pay a pittance to workers who make shoes that sell for $200. Others that pollute the environment, expose workers to danger, or contribute to climate change.

It’s all a matter of perspective. Some investors are prepared to tolerate some degree of social irresponsibility in exchange for a good return, while an increasing number of investors will eschew those companies that operate in a sector or manner contrary to their beliefs, along with the funds that invest in them.

h2 What’s in a name?/h2

First there were ethical funds, most of which use negative screens for stock selection – i.e. excluded companies as dictated by an investment mandate.

There was always some difference in the degree of ethics applied; while some funds would have a blanket ban on investment in companies in specific sectors or with stated business attributes, others would take a less hard-line approach and limit exposure to such companies. A common example were resource stocks that mined uranium – some ethical funds would have no exposure, others might cap the exposure.

Next came the acronym ESG – investors increasingly consider Environmental, Social and Governance factors when selecting stocks. Investors using ESG factors generally use a positive screen to actively seek companies that have desirable ESG attributes, or which are actively working to improve in these areas. Common ESG issues are as follows:

Hot on the heels of ESG came SRI, or Socially Responsible Investment; a little more broadly defined, it could be argued that socially responsible investment embodies both ‘ethical’ and ESG investment. SRI approaches may use both negative and positive screening of sectors and companies. Rewarding good corporate citizens is an important motivation of SRI investors; after all, there generally needs to be a financial motivation for businesses to operate in a socially responsible manner.

h2 Socially responsible investment goes mainstream/h2

The Responsible Investment Association Australasia (RIAA) is the peak industry body for ethical investment and represents responsible investors across Australia and New Zealand. Its 170+ members, which include super funds, investment managers and asset consultants, manage more than $1 trillion assets under management – that’s nearly the size of Australia’s super pool.

Get The App
Join the millions of people who stay on top of global financial markets with Investing.com.
Download Now

The adoption of socially responsible and ESG metrics into company analysis by mainstream fund managers has grown over the past decade. Fund manager activism is on the rise. Increasingly, fund managers see the integration of these metrics as a source of alpha, or above benchmark return, to their investors.

And it’s paying off: Australian Ethical (AE) reported a 34% increase in the number of members in its super fund at 30 June 2017. AE invests in ‘good investments in areas such as clean energy, health care, sustainable products, recycling and innovative technology’, among others. AE avoids companies involved in coal, coal seam mining, native forest logging, weapons, harmful products or human rights abuses – to name just a few.

This is a global trend – the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investing (UNPRI), launched in 2006, reflect the view that ESG issues can affect the performance of investment portfolios and believes investment managers must give ESG factors appropriate consideration if they are to fulfil their fiduciary duty.

Signatories are divided into three categories: