Opinion

Don't Give Up on Ethical Investing

Critics like Paul Hawken have their points. But good values do yield high value.

By Deb Abbey, 2 Jun 2005, TheTyee.ca

MoneyTree

Global warming, acute water shortages, the decline of biodiversity: there is an ever growing body of clear evidence that we must reduce our human footprint on the planet or perish.

As aware, caring citizens, we do what we can - eat organic, locally-grown produce, avoid big box stores in favour of neighbourhood emporiums, volunteer our time and contribute financially to social organizations. Then it comes time to invest for our retirement, and we're baffled. How do we make sure that the dollars we invest in the cold hard capital markets are working for us and working for the planet? Socially responsible investment options have burgeoned in answer to that question, increasing from US $40 billion in the United States in 1984 to more than US $2.3 trillion in 2003. In Canada, SRI investment has increased from $49.94 billion in 2000 to $65.46 billion in 2004. But despite its amazing growth, reviews have been mixed, with critics ranging from those who believe that any kind of social responsibility is the antithesis of sound business practice to those who believe that all corporations are evil and that to participate in the capital markets is to enable the evil-doers.

Lending fuel to the debate is a recent article published in The Tyee in which environmentalist and author Paul Hawken takes fair and accurate aim at some of the paradoxes and hypocrisies of the corporate social responsibility movement and some of the many socially responsible mutual funds.

What Hawken didn't say

Hawken cites a number of companies that appeared on a '100 Most Sustainable Companies in the World' list released by a Canadian Magazine [Corporate Knights] at the World Economic Forum in January; among them, Bristol-Myers Squibb (a pharmaceutical company that conspired to protect high profits on Taxol, a breast cancer treatment, after their patent expired, and was also fined $150 million by the US Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) last year for "cooking its books") and hard liquor producer Diego. He points at a number of US-based SRI funds that invest in corporations "that fight against environmental regulation; whose trade associations lobby against living wages…whose CEOs raise millions of dollars for the Bush administration's assault on human rights and the environment."

The problem with Hawken's fair criticism - and his important call for much greater transparency and disclosure from those doing the analyzing -- is that it is unlikely to make Bristol-Myers or Diego better corporate citizens, but may encourage well-intended investors to throw up their hands and invest exclusively in non-SRI funds. (How many shares of Halliburton, Exxon and Walmart could I end up owning, anyway?)

The problem is not just that the bar is sometimes set too low, but that the tent is too big. One US fund in that tent, the AB Fund, with a Southern Baptist affiliation, screens for alcohol, gambling and contraceptives but does not screen for arms or nuclear power. Some funds invest in corporate laggards like Walmart claiming their shareholder resolutions encourage better behaviour - even as the company continues to aggressively undermine worker rights and eliminate local small business.

So what's an investor to do?

Better values, higher value

Just as in the broader market, investors should demand clear and complete disclosure. If there is a company in your mutual fund portfolio you have questions about, you have every right - you may even consider it a responsibility - to call and grill the fund company. As Hawken effectively reveals, you can't assume that a value-driven manager shares your values, or that your definition of social responsibility is the same as their definition.

It is time for socially responsible mutual fund companies to be more transparent about the companies that they own and the rationale for owning them in 'your' retirement portfolio.

But there are other issues here that also deserve to be examined. When we get beyond the 'your values' and 'my values' debate, we find that good companies do better financially! The most conclusive research done on the subject (including a survey of dozens of studies recently released by Harvard) proves that socially responsible companies do better financially. That should matter to all investors, not just those who want to invest in a better world.

The rigorous analysis conducted by the best SRI firms has gone beyond measuring past performance and evolved to a risk management model that assesses a company's ability to manage future liabilities. They demand clearer, more detailed sustainability reporting - and there is a direct, positive correlation between reporting on social, environmental and governance issues and strong financial performance.

Culling the companies

There are companies that will never clean up without regulation, that believe that 'reputation risk management' is a media strategy, not a natural outcome of better business practices. We can keep them out of our portfolios. And there are imperfect but decent companies that are sensitive to the growing risks to their reputations and bottom lines -- risks faced by all companies in the information age. Through social impact investment, proactive shareholder campaigns and active dialogue with boards and executives, we can effect positive change. We have.

Because fortunately, not all companies are as incorrigible as Walmart. There are good companies that are full of smart people focused on innovation and best practice. People who understand that companies don't exist in a vacuum. Their success is dependent on their customers, employees, suppliers, communities and shareholders. Filing shareholder resolutions asking these companies to improve their social, environmental and governance practices often leads to incremental but real, measurable change.

And if being part of the social change agenda isn't your cup of tea, if you think that all corporations are evil, you can always invest in the best of the best, companies that are leading through best practice models or cutting edge technologies. Companies that contribute to and reap the benefits of social leadership.

Social impact investing is about demonstrating the financial benefits of strong social and environmental performance and good governance. Good companies make more money. The world's a better place. It's a simple equation.

Deb Abbey is President and Founder of Real Assets Investment Management. She is the Portfolio Manager of the Real Assets Social Impact Funds and the Real Assets Social Leaders Fund. Abbey co-authored the bestseller "The 50 Best Ethical Stocks for Canadians". Her most recent book "Global Profit and Global Justice - Using Your Money to Change the World" was published in January 2004. Information about Real Assets shareholder campaigns can be found at www.realassets.ca  [Tyee]

6  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • Bytesmiths

    6 years ago

    Comments on "Don't Give Up on Ethical Investing"

    I would like to see more funds that are proactive progressive investors. Rather than screening out the ugly, why not screen for the beautiful? For example, a fund that invests primarily in alternative energy companies, or organic food producers.

  • seriousjim

    6 years ago

    People need to realize that the majority of the economy is consumer spending. If people really got serious about voting with their dollars, change would come fast.

    The public education system has been eroded to the point that the majority of people just don’t have the capability to imagine how personal choice impacts the greater world. Ignorance is bliss and the first world is a blissful place, and as such a profitable one.

    People demand ethical investing choices from fund managers but at the last minute go with funds promising higher returns. Greed is the strongest emotion and it is promoted endlessly in a capitalistic society.

    Companies are no different, it is only greed motivates a company losing money to environmentally or socially superior competitors to change. By law, executives must attempt for the highest returns possible.

    Every dollar we spend is a choice and has far reaching implications. Consumers don’t have to buy the cheapest thing out there, you can be pretty sure those savings came off somebody’s back. The real costs to society are hidden. Future generations are the ones who will actually pay our bills. But man are we having a good time.

  • quietpenguin

    6 years ago

    Your own personal choices on investing are important - for some, nuclear power is an ethical decision; to some cars make no sense at all, and the inclusion of any car oriented company could be considered unethical.

    Almost no business is pure and without fault: computer companies (doesn't technology promise a paperless future) are routinely fined for the sever environmental impact of fabricating silicon.

    This doens't invalidate ethical funds at all, but the decision to purchase any investment is a personal one, and its important that those investments reflect your personal preferences.

  • SMitchell

    6 years ago

    Quietpenguin, ain't that the truth. I personally have no problem with nuclear power , genetic engineering, or firms that do contract work for the military (so long as it's OUR military). But such firms are routinely screened from most "ethical" mutual fund companies.

    Perhaps a better approach would be a broader list of companies and then let the buyer eliminate the ones they didn't wish to do business with.

    Also SeriousJim, companies are not "required by law" to increase profit by any means necessary. Nobody's going to bust a company for say, increased environmental awareness except perhaps the shareholders.

  • freebear

    6 years ago

    So what does ethical mean?

    We live in a society that seems to be less and less ethical.

    Whether you look at politics, corporations, or people.

    For many the phrase "its only cheating if you get caught" is something they live by.

    I would suggest that if you want to make an ethical investment in stocks(I know I can not afford to!) you should actually do your own investigation of potential places to invest.

    Why do governmnets sign agreements to practice free tyrade rather than fair trade?

    Because often it about a win/lose situation rather than a win/win one.

  • Novare Res

    6 years ago

    My design firm, Novare Res, does advertising etc. for Western Wind Energy and they are publicly traded on the TSX Venture exchange. They own and operate wind farms in California, Arizona, and have a new site in New Brunswick coming online in Jan/Feb 06.

    Getting people to see that you can invest AND make good money with socially responsible companies is a challenge they face for the same reasons Paul Hawken outlines. Just because BP has a great office waste recycling program doesn't mean they are green or socially responsible.

    The challenges will continue but if you are looking for a solid 'green' investment, check out http://www.westernwindenergy.com

    • No best comments selected by an editor for this story yet. To see all comments, click the All Comments tab, above.
    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.