Socially Responsible Investing

Starbucks: We are indivisible

October 30, 2011

I’m not much for patriotic displays, but I’m proud to wear this red, white and blue wristband inscribed with the word INDIVISIBLE.

I hope you’ll wear one, too. They’re available, beginning Tuesday, at Starbucks, for a donation of $5 or more to a project called Let’s Create Jobs for USA.

The program aims to create thousands of jobs across the country, by investing community development financial institutions (CDFIs) — mostly credit unions and community banks — that will then lend to small businesses, nonprofits, housing and commercial developers, micro-enterprises and the like, all to spark the economy and create jobs.

I’m a fan of this project,  for several reasons.

First, there’s no more front-of-mind issue in America today than jobs. So this a great example of how a big company can help tackle an important  problem–while enhancing its reputation as a business that supports its communities.

Second, Let’s Create Jobs for USA underscores the fact that, despite the rhetoric from politicians, jobs are best created by the private sector.  If you’re anti-business, you’re anti-jobs.

Ben Packard

Third, although credit for the campaign ultimately belongs to Howard Schultz, Starbucks CEO, Let’s Create Jobs for USA unfolded as it did because of a connection between Ben Packard, vice president of global responsibility at Starbucks and Mark Pinsky, president and CEO of the Opportunity Finance Network, a national network of CDFIs. Ben, Mark and I serve together on the board of Net Impact, a great organization of students and young professionals whose purpose is to inspire and equip young people to use the power of business to make the world a better place.

Let’s Create Jobs for USA is very much in the spirit of Net Impact. [click to continue…]

{ 9 comments }

Stephen Viederman: Foundations don’t practice what they preach

May 7, 2011

Today’s guest post comes from Stephen Viederman, the former president of the Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation and an expert on sustainable investing. Steve, who has worked in the foundation world for more than 25 years, defines sustainable investing is “future-oriented, risk-adjusted and opportunity-directed.”  This is also called socially-responsible or green investing.

Here’s the problem: Even foundations that aim to promote sustainability or social justice with their grants don’t see their investments as another tool to achieve that end. They don’t, in other words, put their money where their mouth is, or where their values are. Steve, by the way, is also the father of Dan Viederman, executive director of Verite, a human-rights nonprofit; evidently, working for the public good runs in the family. This essay was originally published by Inflection Point Capital Management, a new sustainability-driven asset management boutique led by the estimable Matthew Kiernan with offices in Toronto, London, New York and Melbourne.

Philanthropic foundations are like old-fashioned slot machines. They have one arm and are known for their occasional payout.

Although the term “mission-related investing” found its way into the lexicon of philanthropy decades ago, the finance committees of most foundations continue to manage their endowments like investment bankers. Their portfolios give no hint that they are institutions whose purpose is the public benefit. There is a chasm between mission – grantmaking – and investment. The logic of a synergy between the two has yet to take hold. [click to continue…]

{ 3 comments }

B the change you want to see

May 3, 2011

Is shareholder capitalism broken?

Few would argue that it’s working well. Business as usual has us on a path to climate catastrophe. The housing/banking industry collapse threw the world into recession. We’ve seen Fukushima, the BP oil spill, the Massey coal mine deaths. Growing income inequality has become a persistent worry.

The conventional response to all that – indeed, the one that I share – is that smarter (though not more) regulation is needed. But a growing number of business people say the problems go deeper. They say a new kind of corporate legal structure is needed to require companies to operate for the  good of society, not just for their shareholders. These new corporations—they’re called B Corporations—are growing in number, and their structure has been enshrined into law in four states—Vermont, Maryland, New Jersey and Virginia.

Here’s what B Lab, the nonprofit behind B Corp, says on its website:

Our vision is simple yet ambitious: to create a new sector of the economy which uses the power of business to solve social and environmental problems. This sector will be comprised of a new type of corporation – the B Corporation – that meets rigorous and independent standards of social and environmental performance, accountability, and transparency.

And in its annual report:

After the latest round of economic and environmental crises, it’s clear we need systemic solutions to the systemic problem that places the interests of shareholders over the interests of workers, community and the environment.

Interesting, no? A couple of months ago, I heard Jay Coen Gilbert, a founder of B Lab along with Bart Houlahan and Andrew Kassoy,  talk about B Corp (it stands for Benefit Corp.) at a GreenBiz conference; afterwards, we caught up by phone to talk some more. [click to continue…]

{ 2 comments }

Kiva: pushing the envelope on “green”

May 1, 2011

You’ve probably heard of Kiva, the peer-to-peer microfinance website. Founded in 2005, Kiva has earned a reputation as an innovative nonprofit: It has enabled loans to be made to about 573,000 low-income entrepreneurs worth more than $210 million in 60 countries. More than 570,000 people, mostly Americans, have done the lending, and the repayment rate is more than 98%. This would be reason enough to cheer.

Not content with the status quo, though, Kiva lately has pushed into new arenas. Last fall, Kiva added “student microloans” to its range of offerings. Last month, Kiva, added a category called “green loans,” permitting businesses and individuals in poor countries to borrow as little as $25 to make their homes or workplaces more energy efficient, to recycle more or to convert to clean energy sources.

Premal Shah

Last week, I talked via Skype with Premal Shah, the 35-year-old president of Kiva about the new initiative. He’s smart and engaging, easy to talk with, and thoughtful about economics, his undergrad major at Stanford. He told me that Kiva, to magnify its impact, he explained, wants to take advantage of the fact that its  lenders are for the most part willing to take risks. People aren’t putting their kids college funds or retirement savings at risk here. So Kiva has the freedom and the opportunity to test new ideas in microcredit.

“The Internet community can come in, take risks, try something that’s unproven,” Premal told me. So Kiva should be constantly exploring the “risk and cost frontiers of microfinance,” pushing the envelope and then hoping that more risk-averse providers of capital, like conventional banks, will follow. [click to continue…]

{ 2 comments }

Investments in genocide, hidden from view

November 30, 2010

Here’s what Eric Cohen, the chairperson of Investors Against Genocide, told a congressional hearing today:

It has been over 12 years since the U.S. imposed sanctions on Sudan and noted serious human rights abuses, seven years since the Darfur genocide began, six years since Congress declared it a genocide, and five years since the movement for targeted divestment from Sudan began Yet most financial institutions are still investing in the worst companies funding the genocide, and, through the fund offerings of these investment firms, millions of Americans are caught in the web of these problem investments, almost always unknowingly and without the possibility of choosing.

Tragically, he’s got a point. Better, he’s got a proposal–a requirement that mutual funds disclose whether they chose to be “genocide-free,” which is simpler than it sounds. Better yet, he had a receptive audience on Capitol Hill–Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York and Gary Miller of California, who are the chairman and ranking member of a subcommittee of the House Committee on Financial Services, as well as such interested legislators as Mike Capuano of Massachusetts, who has been active on Sudan issues. Congress could act to mandate fuller disclosure from the mutual fund industry next year.

Genocide in Darfur

Investors Against Genocide has been campaigning against money management firms that own stock in companies that do business in Sudan since 2006. (See Fidelity’s Sudan Problem at fortune.com and  Fidelity, Vanguard and the genocide in Darfur) The group has asked financial institutions to avoid investments in foreign firms that are known to substantially contribute to genocide or crimes against humanity, an approach it calls “genocide-free investing.” (U.S. companies can’t operate in Sudan) Socially responsible mutual fund families Calvert Investments and Domini Social Investments have also taken a leadership role, cleansing their portfolios of companies doing business in Sudan and asking others to do so. As Domini’s general counsel, Adam Kazner, told the submcommittee:

Investors are not simply passive actors in this system – they are playing a critical capital allocation role, and should be mindful of the implications of their investment decisions.

Congress has stepped up to the plate before. In 2007, it passed the Sudan Accountability and Divestment Act (SADA), which prohibits the government from contracting with companies doing business in Sudan and supports state and local divestment efforts. Thirty-five U.S. states have enacted legislation or adopted policies affecting investments related to Sudan, primarily in response to the Darfur crisis and Sudan’s designation by the U.S. government as a state sponsor of terrorism.

So what’s the problem? Essentially this–a small group of foreign companies continue to operate in Sudan. According to Cohen:

In Sudan, the CNPC group (including PetroChina), the Sinopec group, Petronas and ONGC are internationally recognized as providing the government of Sudan with the funding needed to support the genocide in Darfur. The government of Sudan has used 70% of its oil revenue to provide arms and funding for the genocide. Some of these same problem companies are also active in Burma and Iran.

Some U.S.-based mutual funds then invest in those companies. Fidelity, Vanguard and Franklin Templeton have been singled out by Investors Against Genocide for holding shares in Chinese oil companies.

No one from the  fund industry testified before Congress. Fidelity has said that stopping the genocide is a matter for government officials, not mutual fund managers, while Vanguard has said it has a human rights policy, while continuing to invest in companies doing business in Sudan.

Shareholder proposals calling for divestment were defeated at Vanguard and Fidelity funds, but that’s no surprise since most mutual funds investors automatically vote their proxies with managements. It’s safe to say that most investors would rather not see even a tiny fraction of their money supporting genocide in Sudan, or winding its way to Iran or Burma, with their terrible human rights records.

Investors Against Genocide has scored a couple of big victories. TIAA-CREF, to its great credit, first lobbied the Chinese oil firms to get out of Sudan and then sold its holdings. (Here’s the fund’s announcement.) The American Funds group also sold its stock in PetroChina, but did so without explanation.  Cohen told me: “I congratulate them even though they won’t say anything publicly.”

Some investors have taken note. Last May, the Unitarian Universalist Association’s Board of Trustees announced that it would end a 10 year relationship with Fidelity and move their $178 million retirement accounts to TIAA-CREF in order to be genocide-free.

You can read all the testimony, as well as a GAO report on the issue, here. Cohen’s testimony provides specifics on how genocide-free disclosure would work. Mutual funds would be required to disclose if they have a policy prohibiting investments in countries that have been subject to U.S. government sanctions for human rights violations. Right now, they report on their holdings only once a quarter, and their human rights policies, if any, can be hard to find.

Says Cohen: “Right now you need a doctorate in research to have a clue about who’s on what side.”

This seems like a classic example of investors’ right to know. Transparency would shed some light on the values of the investment firm, and we can hope that markets would do the rest.

{ 1 comment }

Can sustainable investing beat the markets?

October 20, 2010

This week, Newsweek released its second annual  Green Rankings of the largest companies in America, as well as a new analysis of big global corporations. These sorts of cross-industry comparisons of companies are difficult to do, but my sense is that Newsweek has done a credible job, with the help of partners MSCI ESG Research, Trucost and CorporateRegister.com. Given the attention that the list is getting,  it seems like a good time to return to a question I’ve thought about for years: Do companies committed to sustainability represent good investment opportunities?

The stock-market performance of Dell, which tops the 2010 list, is not encouraging: The firm’s shares have fallen by 55% during the last five years, while the NASDAQ is up by 18% during the same time period. Of course, one company’s performance over one time period doesn’t prove a thing. It turns out that over the past year, the top 100 companies on the 2009 Newsweek list outperformed the S&P500 by 6.8%.  While this data point doesn’t prove anything either, it’s interesting. So I arranged an email interview with Cary Krosinsky of Trucost to explore the issue further.

Cary Krosinsky

Cary is head of investor and corporate services for North America for Trucost, which is based in the UK. He’s also the author and co-editor, with Nick Robins of HSBC, of Sustainable Investing: The Art of Long Term Performance (Earthscan Publications, 2008), and he has taught classes on investing and sustainability at Columbia.

Marc: Cary, let’s start by defining “sustainable investing.” Is it different from socially responsible investing?

Cary: Socially responsible investing, or SRI, is too broad an investment category.  SRI encompasses very different things—alternative energy investing on the one hand, funds with a religious mandate on the other, as well as funds investing in a mainstream index such as the S&P 500, and subtracting out alcohol, tobacco and firearms.  We see many different styles of SRI.

Sustainable Investing is the more positive strand of SRI – one that is future-oriented, risk-adjusted and opportunity-directed. It looks at what companies can do to lessen risk, as well as capitalize on opportunities, in order to be ahead of the curve in their respective industries. It helps create long-term value, identifies “predictable surprises,” (as opposed to “black swans,”) such as climate change, diminishing water availability, human rights issues and others that influence investment outcomes.  Innovation emerges as a key driver of value through sustainability, as does the active management of environmental impacts.

Marc: It sounds like sustainable investing means identifying the smartest, most forward-thinking companies. In your book, you write that “sustainable investing funds have already outperformed consistently over the short, medium and long term.” How can you support that claim?

Cary: We found that for the 1, 3 and 5 years leading up to the end of 2007, when looking at SRI funds with this positive, opportunity-focused sustainable investing methodology, that they consistently outperformed their mainstream index equivalents.  When updating this study for a UN Principles of Responsible Investment academic paper in 2009, this still held true, both before, through and after the recent financial crisis of 2008 into 2009.

Further correlation of this has been demonstrated by diverse investors including Paul Hawken, who helps manage the Highwater Global Fund as well as Abby Joseph Cohen of Goldman Sachs.  Mark Fulton of Deutsche Bank spoke earlier this year regarding how the climate change sectors they are tracking have been outperforming their benchmarks since the recent market bottom. Matthew Kiernan, formerly of Innovest, now runs money and is also demonstrating outperformance from this more positive approach. The top 100 performers in the Newsweek Green Rankings which we actively participate in at Trucost, have outperformed the S&P 500, on an equally weighted basis, by 6.8% over the last year. [click to continue…]

{ 4 comments }

Social funds: BP, the 1960s, and greed

August 15, 2010

Recently, after posting a column about BP and socially responsible mutual funds (See Social Funds and BP: How embarrassing!)  I heard from Adam Kanzer, who is managing director and general counsel at Domini Social Investments. While Domini has never owned shares of BP, Adam and I began a conversation about the role  of socially-responsible mutual funds. Adam, who has been in the fund business for twelve years, is a smart and committed executive, but we don’t always agree, so we decided to engage in a dialog about social funds.

Adam Kanzer

Adam Kanzer

Marc: Adam, let’s start with BP. Why did Domini exclude the company? Do you hold any other oil or coal companies?

Adam: Domini has consistently excluded BP from our portfolios because of our concerns about their safety record. Our initial review followed the Texas City explosion in 2005, but our decision was quickly reinforced by the Prudhoe Bay spill the following year.  We met with BP to discuss these and related issues with them. And each time we revisited BP, we found more violations.

We’re looking to identify the key sustainability challenges each company faces. For the oil and gas industries, worker safety and environmental compliance are among a handful of core issues we consider.  I should also note that we have consistently excluded Transocean and Halliburton, both of whom played a role in the Deepwater Horizon project. In addition we have also consistently excluded Massey Energy, the other current poster-child for disaster, as well as Toyota for substantial safety, employee relations and human rights concerns.  We discuss these decisions on our website. And yes, we do hold other oil and gas companies, although we set a high bar for entry. We do not invest in companies whose core business is coal mining.

Marc: Any thoughts on why BP was so widely held by other socially-responsible funds?

Adam: As CEO of BP, Lord Browne made very important statements about the reality of climate change at a time when others in his industry were denying its existence. That was important. In addition, BP has been committed to transparency on its social and environmental performance. I can’t speak for other firms, but I can see how those factors may have led some to hold BP. We felt that the safety and environmental issues outweighed these positives.

If a fund’s benchmark is heavily weighted towards oil, then an SRI manager will need to consider that. This tyranny of the benchmark certainly led many to hold BP and other oil companies that in a perfect world they would have preferred to avoid.

Which brings me to the important question that I have not heard – why did all of the so-called ‘mainstream’ investors buy BP? Why did investors allow this company to become one of the largest in the world by market capitalization? At least social investors weighed these issues and came to a decision. The rest of the market acted as if there was no problem.

Marc: That’s an excellent point, and it makes me wonder why people pay mutual fund managers such high fees. They missed the housing and Wall Street bubbles, and didn’t see or care about the safety issues at BP. Clearly most  funds aren’t very good at managing risk.

Turning to another topic, many SRI funds have their roots in the anti-war movement of the 1960s and 1970s as well as in faith-based investing. So funds like Domini exclude companies that make weapons, alcohol, tobacco and nuclear power. My question is, why? Let’s start with weapons. Don’t we need companies that make weapons in the post 9/11 era?

Adam:   First, it is important to understand that we divide those industries into two general categories – companies that provide addictive products and services, and companies whose products contribute to geopolitical instability. We place military weapons manufacturers and nuclear power in the latter category. We do not consider investments in addiction and global instability to be productive uses of capital.

National defense is too important to be placed in the hands of the same system that brought us the financial crisis. When Eisenhower issued his warnings about the growth of the military-industrial complex, he wasn’t questioning our need for a strong national defense. Yes, we need weapons, but do we need publicly traded companies manufacturing weapons? Are the capital markets an appropriate mechanism for providing these goods, or have the markets distorted our national priorities? That’s a critical debate our nation needs to have.

There are also categories of weapons that violate international humanitarian law because they cannot distinguish between military and civilian targets. These include landmines, clusterbombs and nuclear weapons. These ‘products’ make the world more dangerous, and landmines have caused incalculable misery to innocent civilians – including children – around the world. As investors, we have a responsibility to choose wisely. Our Funds’ shareholders choose not to profit from these violations, so we exclude these manufacturers and companies that manufacture nuclear weapons delivery systems.

Marc: What about nuclear power? Some environmentalists, notably Stewart Brand, say we need to seriously consider nukes in light of the climate crisis? [click to continue…]

{ 4 comments }

Social funds and BP: How embarrassing!

July 11, 2010

bp_logo_color.180105622If you are a shareholder in a so-called socially responsible or sustainable mutual fund, you may also be an owner of  BP, the company responsible for the environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico.

When BP’s oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico exploded on April 20, the company was a major holding of the Dow Jones Sustainability Index–which calls itself an index of “the leading sustainability-driven companies worldwide.”

BP was also held by Pax World Funds (“sustainable investing is a better smarter, way to invest”), by the MMA International Fund, which is part of a fund group that is “guided by Christian values,” and by the Legg Mason Social Awareness Fund, which, as of March 31, had BP as its single biggest holding.

These are not anomalies. When Cary Krosinsky, an editor of a book called Sustainable Investing: The Art of Long Term Performance, tallied up the holdings of about 350 socially responsible investment (SRI) funds from around the world, he found that at the end of 2008, BP was the second biggest holding, in terms of how much money the funds had collectively invested. The five biggest holdings were Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Nokia, Vodafone and HSBC Holdings.

Does this look "sustainable" to you?

Does this look "sustainable" to you?

What’s more, BP and Shell aren’t the only oil companies held by the social funds. The biggest holding of a mutual fund called the Sentinel Sustainable Core Opportunities Fund–which says it “screens for fundamentally strong, well-managed companies with sustainable business models and a commitment to corporate responsibility”– was, as of March 31, believe it or not….Transocean, the world’s largest offshore drilling contractor, which operated the Deepwater Horizon rig for BP.

While no mutual fund manager could have foreseen the oil rig explosion, you’ve got to wonder how a fund with the word sustainable in its name could have as its biggest holding an offshore oil drilling company. I emailed Sentinel to try to probe their reasoning a bit. You won’t be surprised to hear that they declined to be interviewed.

So what does the BP-SRI connection tell you? At the very minimum, it suggest that any investor in a mutual fund that calls itself socially responsible, sustainable, green, blue or any other color would do well to dig deep beneath the magazine ads and website fluff to understand what the fund is really all about. (Disclosure: I’m a small investor in Calvert and Domini Funds, and a believer in the SRI idea.) Some SRI funds still focus on feel-good, negative screens that shield investors from weapons, tobacco and alcohol, and don’t get much more analytical than that. (See Socially Responsible Investing’s Silly Screens) [click to continue…]

{ 5 comments }

The business of rating business

May 30, 2010

good-better-bestIs Coca Cola a more sustainable company than PepsiCo? Which company is greener, Dell or Hewlett Packard? Both UPS and FedEx say they are environmental leaders—who’s right?

Underwriters Laboratories (UL) — one of the world’s oldest and most respected standard-setting organizations — is going to help settle some of those arguments.

In cooperation with Greener World Media – the publisher of Greenbiz.com, where I’m a senior writer — UL plans to launch a ratings system for companies by the end of the year. This is a big deal because it could help bring credibility and clarity to the very crowded and confused business of sustainability ratings, rankings and eco-labels.

The news that Greener World Media and UL are working together on a sustainability standard surfaced last week when Marcello Manca, the vice president and general manager of UL Environment, spoke on a panel at the Amsterdam Global Conference on Sustainability and Transparency convened by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). At the same time, my friend Joel Makower, the founder of Greener World Media, wrote a detailed blogpost, explaining the origins of the project, which go back to the early 2000s.  Joel calls the new venture “LEED for companies,” saying:

We’ve long described this in shorthand as “LEED for Companies” — that is, a point-based rating system along with good-better-best levels of certification. We have been inspired by the success of the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED green building rating systems, which created definitions of “green building” where there were none. Those ratings systems were critical catalysts in spurring the green-building market. Similarly, we believe this new standard and rating system will help define sustainability at the enterprise level, growing markets for certified companies.

If all goes according to plan, the new ratings system will rise above the crowd because it combines the knowledge and networks of Joel and Rory [click to continue…]

{ 11 comments }

Make money. Save the planet, too.

May 6, 2010

Like most big problems, climate change will require big solutions. Governments and business will have to make massive investment in clean energy–$45 trillion between now and 2025, says the International Energy Agency. This could make some people very rich. Wall Street, are you listening?

dbmsgDeutsche Bank is. No financial institution has done more to promote investment in climate change solutions than Deutsche Bank. In 2007, it started a unit called DB Climate Change Advisors that has produced path-breaking research and developed products for institutional investors. The bank has also said—loudly and often—that climate change is a crisis that needs to be addressed. That huge digital billboard (left) by Madison Square Garden in midtown Manhattan proclaims that “Climate Change Affects Everyone” and keeps a running tally of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

This week, I met with Kevin Parker, the global head of asset management for Deutsche Bank and the driver of the bank’s climate change commitment. Parker was a managing director at Morgan Stanley before joining DB in 1997, where he now oversees a group that has about $727 billion under management. Of that,about $7 billion, or 1%, is invested in products with a climate-change focus. That number, he says, really should be much higher.

“Climate change is not merely an investment sector that may hold future promise,” he wrote recently, in the introduction to a detailed report called Investing in Climate Change 2010. [PDF, download here.] “It is a sector that has already delivered and is continuing to deliver.”

More about that claim in a moment, but first a word or two about Kevin. For him, it turns out, the climate change issue is both personal and business. Parker, who is 50, told me that [click to continue…]

{ 1 comment }

← Previous Entries