You are here: Home - Investing - Experienced Investor - News -

Fund manager view: can morality and investment co-exist?

0
Written by: Gary Greenberg
08/09/2016
For emerging market investors, there is no shortage of ethical problems to negotiate: inhumane practices and profit-generating industries that harm people and the environment. So can investors raise returns with responsible portfolios?

Expecting companies to become altruistic is asking a lot. On the one hand, individuals are often self-seeking; on the other, ill-conceived or politically motivated regulation can be stifling, and no company can be expected to be totally selfless.

Of course, many employers could pay their staff more, spend more on workplace safety and be more truthful in advertising. But no matter how well-meaning a management team is, it inevitably faces difficult trade-offs, with competing stakeholders to satisfy and competitors to outshine. Companies cannot afford to gold-plate every socially responsible initiative: shareholders require a return on their investments, otherwise why should they invest?

Investors may wish to invest in completely sustainable businesses, but this would exclude an unacceptably high number of companies, making their job impossible and their clients miserable. But what is the proper response to companies which, long aware of humanity’s responsibility for climate change, fund ‘research’ with the express purpose of denying it?

Non-moral versus ethical investing

Some consider an investment in a business whose actions have potentially destructive consequences to be a matter of assessing the related risks, such as fines, lawsuits and reduction of brand value. This is simply a non-moral approach. Other investors perceive that, like other areas of human activity, investment should be informed by ethics.

The non-moral view sees the purpose of business as wealth creation. Investments are assessed by analysing the cost – such as impairment of cash flow and loss of capital – against the benefit to the investor. The law establishes what is allowed in business and sanctions the activities it judges harmful to society.  The investor is essentially free to do anything that is not illegal.

But sanctions may be weakened by special interests and made trivial. For non-moral investors, illegal acts by a company may be acceptable and even desirable – if the profits outweigh the fines. Senior management, who may have benefitted from the breach, may be unaffected.

Unethical actions, like buying up obscure pharmaceutical formulations and jacking up the price in ghoulish disregard for patients with no alternative, are not only seen as acceptable but as ‘great business models’ by some investors.

The ethical view which was mainstream before Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher endorsed the pursuit of self-interest (or greed) as good, is now seen by some as quaint.

In this view, the purpose of business is, through commercial endeavour, to improve society. Investing for returns is very important, but the ownership of companies involves some responsibility for their actions. The legal shield of a corporate structure does not absolve an investor from the moral responsibility for the means through which their return is generated.

Both views contain complexities. Framing ethical considerations as ‘risks’ is comforting but may represent an abdication of responsibility: buying the stock of a polluting company supports the share price, lowering its cost of capital and making it easier to expand. How much return are end-investors like you and I – who are happy to recycle household waste and buy a hybrid car – willing to forego for the sake of responsibility in our personal portfolios?

If a fund manager outperforms, we don’t query their pick of ‘sin stocks.’ Acting like a responsible owner and calling management to account is difficult and time-consuming, requiring specialist skills and experience. It has more clout if investors’ holdings are aggregated to reinforce engagements. Consequently, it is available only to the largest and most sophisticated investors.

The environmental and social costs of our consumption will likely seem shocking to future generations, just as the slave trade horrifies us. Both are terrible distortions of two vital relationships that humanity has: with our planet, and with each other.

As professional investors, being aware of this damage is part of managing risk. But engaging companies to ameliorate this harm is part of being a responsible human being. The two identities do not need to be, and should not be, separate.

Gary Greenberg is head of emerging markets at Hermes Investment Management

There are 0 Comment(s)

If you wish to comment without signing in, click your cursor in the top box and tick the 'Sign in as a guest' box at the bottom.

Your right to a refund if travel is affected by train strikes

There have been a wave of train strikes in the past six months, and the fresh round of walkouts take place tod...

Could you save money with a social broadband tariff?

Two-thirds of low-income households are unaware they could be saving on broadband, according to Uswitch.

How to help others and donate to food banks this winter

This winter is expected to be the most challenging yet for the food bank network as soaring costs push more pe...

What will happen if rates change

How your finances will be impacted by a rise in interest rates.

Regular Savings Calculator

Small regular contributions can build up nicely over time.

Online Savings Calculator

Work out how your online savings can build over time.

DIY investors: 10 common mistakes to avoid

For those without the help and experience of an adviser, here are 10 common DIY investor mistakes to avoid.

Mortgage down-valuations: Tips to avoid pulling out of a house sale

Down-valuations are on the rise. So, what does it mean for home buyers, and what can you do?

Five tips for surviving a bear market mauling

The S&P 500 has slipped into bear market territory and for UK investors, the FTSE 250 is also on the edge. Her...

Money Tips of the Week