Should we exclude companies purely on ethical grounds?

Share

Fund managers used to be discouraged, or even prohibited, from taking ethical issues into account when making investment decisions on behalf of their clients. It was widely agreed that investment managers should not let consideration of ethical criteria distract them from choosing investments that maximise financial returns for their clients unless, of course, the client had specifically mandated ethical investment. Asset owners, so people said, were best placed to take action on ethical grounds.

But times have changed and society has changed with them. Fund managers have also had to keep up because we increasingly felt we didn’t want to deliver investment returns to customers irrespective of the cost to society.

How do trustees, managers and investors discharge their duties?

At the heart of this issue lies questions about how investors best discharge their duties. What actions are acceptable in the pursuit of returns? Can investors, or indeed should they, dismiss ‘immoral’ activities relying instead on governments to intervene via regulation? Is it sufficient for investors to say they tried to engage with a company to improve the nature of a product offering or on their corporate risk management strategy?

As recent campaigns on a range of issues have demonstrated, investors are increasingly being asked to justify their actions. This has raised questions about the role of ethics in investing and whether it is defensible for investors to support an activity that, while commercially convenient, viable and legal, is inherently wrong (i.e. something that is bound to have an adverse impact on stakeholders).

Ethical dilemmas by their very nature are not straight forward. The question of ‘whose ethics’ is sometimes used as a reason not to articulate and implement an ethical position. Certainly, criticism by others of a particular ethical position may make it tempting to choose the path of least resistance and avoid any explicit consideration of ethics.

Integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues into our investment decisions and in the discussions we have with the entities in which we invest is entirely consistent with the objective of delivering appropriate risk-adjusted returns over the long term. This approach was formalised when AMP Capital became a signatory to the UN Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI) in 2007 and further reinforced in 2012 with the public statement of our ESG and Responsible Investment Philosophy.

Deciding to exclude certain companies

In 2012, we did not seek to exclude specific companies, asset types or industry sectors from our investable universe on wholly moral or ethical grounds, but this position was recently revisited. We concluded that we had a responsibility, as an investment manager, for what we choose to do, or not do, and how we invest. And that, under rare or extreme circumstances, it may be appropriate to exclude investments in a particular company or sector for purely ethical reasons. The decision was also reflective of the changing attitudes of our clients, who increasingly do not want to be invested in harmful products.

Subsequently, we added an ethical framework and decision-making process that, under exceptional circumstances, would lead to the exclusion of certain investments from a portfolio based on ethical grounds. Working with ethicist Dr Simon Longstaff of The Ethics Centre, we developed a principles-based framework that provided a consistent basis for considering a range of potential ethical issues, not only now but well into the future.

The three concepts that underpin the ethical framework are:

  1. The degree of harm caused
  2. The denial of humanity
  3. The principle of double effect.

[Editor’s note: the principle or rule of double effect concerns the ability to act when a legitimate aim (in this case, removing a company based on ESG guidelines) may cause an effect one would normally be obliged to avoid (eg, reducing the size of the investible universe)].

The result is that we will no longer invest in manufacturers of tobacco and companies involved in manufacture of cluster munitions, land mines, and chemical and biological weapons. We have now started the process to divest of these companies from across our entire portfolio. The divestment of tobacco manufacturers will be the largest to date in Australia.

It’s important to note we are only excluding certain companies or sectors by exception. We still firmly believe in company engagement in order to effect meaningful change. In the case of tobacco, cluster munitions, landmines, biological and chemical weapons manufacturers, however, no engagement can override the inherent dangers involved with their products.

Crucially for investors, this decision still means we can meet our fiduciary obligations to them and our obligations to be a responsible fund manager, delivering strong investment returns that continue to meet their objectives. Our analysis has found that our funds can continue to be managed effectively under this new framework without compromising investment objectives.

In looking after our clients’ funds, we consider it prudent that we articulate the principles by which we discharge this responsibility. Introducing a new ethical framework is the right thing to do by our investors and it is consistent with our long-term focus on responsible investing, which provides greater insights into the potential risks and opportunities that may impact the value, performance and reputation of companies we invest in.

 

Adam Tindall is Chief Executive Officer at AMP Capital, a sponsor of Cuffelinks.

Share
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

, , , , ,

7 Responses to Should we exclude companies purely on ethical grounds?

  1. Geoffrey Denman March 23, 2017 at 5:20 PM #

    Adam, its great to know the professionals, or some of them, are ethical investors.I manage our family SMSF and have self-imposed ethical restraints; no fossil fuels, gambling, enviro-damaging stocks – in short, we try to invest in stocks that IMPROVE humanity. We rejected opportunities for gold stocks recently, because they interfere negatively with the environment, but we would buy LNG gas stocks (not oil or coal) as it reduces harmful effects of climate-change. This feels good for us – we put our money were are heart are. We do OK by the way, about 10% pa. Geoff

    • Ian Woods (AMP Capital) March 27, 2017 at 5:45 PM #

      Geoff, thanks for your comment. It’s great to hear your experience with ethical investing and it sounds like you have a similar ethical investment approach as our Responsible Investment Leaders Fund. We also firmly believe that we can meet our fiduciary obligations to investors and our ethical obligations to be a responsible fund manager, still delivering strong investment returns.

  2. Chris March 23, 2017 at 12:32 PM #

    I can understand weapons being excluded (landmines being non-discriminating against who or what they hurt or kill), but if someone wants to profit from the stupidity (or “choice”) of others to smoke, drink and / or gamble, why not let them go for it ?

    • Warren Bird March 23, 2017 at 2:18 PM #

      I’d be interested in hearing AMP’s answer, but the basic element of the case for tobacco divestment is that it is a highly addictive and harmful product that society accepts should be packaged with all sorts of warnings about the extreme health risks and where just about all forms of passive smoking have now been legislated against (eg it’s banned in restaurants).

      The argument that people freely choose to smoke may apply to some who take it up, but as Dr Bronwyn King says:

      “The reality is that young people, those from a low socio-economic background, and indigenous people make up much of the smoking population. A combination of lack of education, cycles of poverty, and targeted marketing means that many are not making, nor empowered to make, informed decisions.”

      (Dr King is a radiation oncologist who deals face to face with the awful consequences of smoking and fights against the practice. She was aghast to find that her own industry super fund invested in and profited from the very thing that she could see was devastating people. She is a passionate divestment advocated.)

      I would not have thought this was a controversial exclusion.

    • Ian Woods (AMP Capital) March 27, 2017 at 5:44 PM #

      Chris, thanks for your comment. We took the decision that we, as a company, had a responsibility to look at the things we invested in. That meant, in exceptional circumstances, that we would exclude some companies for purely ethical reasons. Tobacco manufacturers were excluded because of the highly addictive nature of tobacco products to individuals who smoke, the fact there is no safe level of consumption and increasing evidence of negative health impacts of second-hand smoking (so impacting people who hadn’t made the decision to smoke).

  3. Warren Bird March 23, 2017 at 11:23 AM #

    Well done, Adam and the team at AMP for this decision.

    I’ve found from conversations around the industry that more investors, retail and institutional, are keen to have activities like these – especially the munitions manufacture – excluded from their superannuation, etc. I’ll be very interested to see if you lose any investors because of this decision and I hope that AMP plans on doing ‘exit interviews’ with their clients over the next few months to test the situation.

    I’m sure the results will do two things: 1) demonstrate to those financial advisers who still simplistically assume that no one wants ‘ethical funds management’ that this just isn’t true, especially when the nature of the ethical issue is explained as clearly as you have here and 2) it will encourage other fund managers to follow suit.

    Of course, for some (such as the Uniting Church for whom I work), the list still isn’t long enough, though I presume that AMP will continue to offer the Responsible Leaders suite of funds for investors who have additional ethical and environmental exclusions.

    • Ian Woods (AMP Capital) March 27, 2017 at 5:44 PM #

      Warren, thanks for your support for the initiative. As you can imagine, we have engaged widely with our institutional and retail clients and the majority we spoke to said they expected these exclusions from a responsible fund manager. The reaction following the announcement has also been similarly positive.

      We agree with you that increasingly people do not want to be invested in harmful products. We’ll still offer the Responsible Investment Leaders range of funds for those clients who want to exclude a broader range of sectors from their investments in line with their values.

Leave a Comment:

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Register for our free weekly newsletter

New registrations receive free copies of our special investment ebooks.