Two-thirds of fund managers believe that social responsibility considerations will form a significantly important part of investment decision-making over the next years, although the majority (60%) thinks socially responsible investment will remain a niche market, according to new research from Deloitte & Touche published on April 22. The survey covered 65 companies who manage over £1,400bn of assets on behalf of clients. Findings include:
more than half say that the driving force for SRI over the last year has been an increase in client interest, as opposed to a belief that SRI investments outperform the market;
nine out of ten believe that CSR is a key element of corporate reputation and brand;
purchasing SRI research is the most popular method of determining a company’s CSR performance (45%), followed by questioning companies at investor/general meetings (45%) and reviewing information in the public domain (34%); only 12% use their own questionnaires;
nearly three quarters (70%) expect to be significantly more active in using their voting rights on SRI-related issues within three years.
Most fund managers use a combination of approaches to measure social responsibility of companies, with nearly half adopting negative screening and the same proportion claiming to “engage” with potential constituents. However the authors of the report point out that engagement can mean very different things, involving different levels of resource, to different fund managers. Contact Chris Burgess, Deloitte & Touche, on 020 7936 3000 (http://www.deloitte.co.uk)
Morley Fund Management is promoting a new tool to rank FTSE 100 companies according to social and environmental criteria. The SRI Sustainability Matrix, launched on May 13, grades companies against two main categories, with an individual score given for each, combined in a final rating. On business sustainability, the ranking is A to E, with an A grade given to those providing a sustainable solution to managing environmental or social issues. Companies are then rated 1 to 5 for business vision and strategy, although to date no companies have been awarded top marks, reserved for those in possession of a clear vision of sustainable development and actively working to achieve it.
The companies with the highest rankings currently include AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Pearson. Morley is also providing a series of policy position papers, available online, on issues such as alcoholism, mobile phones, GMOs and animal welfare. Contact Toby Belsom, Morley, on 020 7809 6189 (http://www.morleyfm.com)
FTSE4Good is updating the index’s environmental criteria, it announced on May 21, by introducing new high, medium and low environmental impact gradings. Companies judged to have a low or medium impact must adopt an environmental policy by March 2003, and all medium impact companies must provide evidence of an environmental management system by August 2003. High impact companies already have to meet more onerous standards. The move comes in the wake of a report on April 21 by the New Economics Foundation, which criticises the FTSE4Good index for watering down green quality standards. An Ethical Door Policy warns that ‘ethics lite’ SRI, especially by new entrants, risks public trust and it calls for an ethical standard to apply to fund managers claiming to be socially responsible. Contact Lyndsey Davey, FTSE4Good, on 020 7448 1821 (http://www.ftse4good.com); Ed Mayo, NEF, on 020 7089 2800 (http://www.nef.org)
The Co-operative Bank reports that its ethical and ecological positioning contributed more than £20m to its pretax profits in 2001, based largely on the value of CSR to its brand. Nearly one in three personal current account customers (31%) says the bank’s stance is the most important reason for opening and maintaining an account. Against this is set the cost of turning away ‘unethical’ business (£3.5m), spending on ecological initiatives (£1m) and the community spend (£3.5m). Meanwhile, BT has published a detailed explanation of the business case for CSR to investors, showing that CSR performance accounts for over a quarter of the positive reputation it enjoys among satisfied customers. Other factors include market opportunities arising from applying ICT to social exclusion. Contact Paul Lawler, Co-op Bank, on 0161 829 5522 (http://www.cooperativebank. co.uk); Steve Kelly, BT, on 020 7356 5000 (http://www.groupbt.com/betterworld)
Swiss Re is named the strongest environmental performer in the European insurance sector. The Innovest survey shows that insurance firms with good environmental records have outperformed competitors on the stock market since 1998. Contact Neil Marsh, Innovest, 020 7743 8871 (http://www.innovestgroup.com)
The Financial Times is working with Spanish media group Recoletos and the Spanish stock exchange to create an ethical funds index for companies operating in Spain, based on the FTSE4Good model, it was announced on May 9. Contact Tom Burns, Recoletos, on 00 34 91 337 0537 (http://www.recoletos.es)
IBM tops Business Ethics magazine’s list of Best Corporate Citizens, published on April 22. Research by DePaul University found that the 100 best companies in 2001 outperformed others in the S&P 500 by more then 10 percentage points. Contact Marjorie Kelly, Business Ethics, on 00 1 612 879 0695 (http://www.businessethics. com)
COMMENT:
As more and more interest focuses on the stock market’s role in promoting CSR, we argue that the best case for socially responsible funds is an ethical, not financial one.
So does CSR pay? Well…. let’s start with the easy bit. Unethical behaviour often doesn’t, as Merrill Lynch found when it had to fork out a $100m fine following investigations by the New York State Attorney into its dodgy investment advice. (At least they weren’t hyping SRI funds.) But consider this: The Observer newspaper’s Money Magazine has created a tongue-in-cheek ‘Sindex’ of the 25 top 100 firms excluded from the FTSE4Good index. They outperformed the other supposedly good 75 companies by 13 percentage points last year and by 16 points over three years. You have to go back ten years to find the saints outrunning the sinners.
Actually, for every study showing a CSR payback (and we’ve reported a fair few in our time) there’s another saying the causal link is not statistically proved. Most of the apparent gains can be accounted for through different sector weightings. For example, SRI funds that were overweight in technology shares (perceived as relatively neutral in social and environmental impacts) were performing relatively well, until that sector crashed.
So where does this leave the case for CSR and SRI? At company management level, acting responsibly towards your various stakeholders can contribute, more likely than not, towards longer term business success – all other things being equal. The fact it they rarely does – like dot.com bubbles bursting – should not deter you from trying. You may at least gain some short-term competitive advantage over others in your sector.
For an ‘ethical’ investor, the case also remains strong, but it’s not a financial one. After all you are mainly concerned that your money should not be misused against your principles. And the good news is that volatility and risk levels in SRI funds are not proving significantly above average, so in the long term you are not at a real disadvantage to the rest of the market.
The people who lose out in this analysis are the amoral investors, who think investing in socially responsible companies is the route to above average returns. The ABI and the rest can try to set standards, especially on risk, and urge ‘engagement’ by their members. But ultimately, the statistics tell us that it’s a zero sum game. By far the strongest element in performance are industry trends, not marginal differences between companies within a sector.
COMMENTS