WHEB Commentary

Seb Beloe

Welby in a Wonga Conga


It is not often that ethical investment features on the front page of the Financial Times, but the critical comments made by Justin Welby, the 106th Archbishop of Canterbury, on the activities of the so-called ‘pay day lender’ Wonga, followed by the revelation that the Church of England itself has a small investment in the business, catapulted the practices of the ethical investment industry into the full glare of the media.

The Church of England has been here before

This isn’t the first time either that the Church of England has been criticized over the nature of the investments carried out by the Church Commissioners, who manage the Church’s investment portfolios. Rowan Williams was caught out after criticizing hedge fund managers when it was revealed that the commissioners had a significant holding in Man Group, and perhaps most memorable of all was the comedian Mark Thomas’ lampooning of the Church’s investments in engineering and arms manufacturer GEC in the late 1990s.

Negative screening of the type employed by the Church Commissioners is a difficult area that requires considerable skill and judgment. “Life is not perfectly good or perfectly bad,” Edward Mason the Secretary to the Church of England Ethical Investment Advisory Group is reported to have said. “Everything is a mess.” Implementing an ethical policy shouldn’t be a mess –there are plenty of high quality investment firms that do an excellent job in clearly articulating, communicating and applying strict ethical policies.

But where Mr. Mason is right is in highlighting the complexity that accompanies deep analysis of ethical investment. Do you avoid companies that have any contracts with the military if you are uncomfortable with weapons manufacturing? Does this extend to service providers responsible for cleaning military bases? Should hotels that provide pay-per-view pornography be black-listed – or for that matter data centres and mobile telephone companies that provide the networks through which pornography is transmitted? And this isn’t a static agenda either; tax avoidance wasn’t a high profile issue 18 months ago. It certainly is now. Is screening out companies with 25% of revenues coming from payday lending the appropriate threshold? Or should it be 3%? Deciding where to draw the line certainly is ‘a mess’ and for a high profile organisation like the Church of England one that is fraught with risk.

Negative screening can inject conflict into the heart of the investment process

The root of the problem with negative screening is that it imposes what is perceived to be a constraint on the ability of investment managers to do their job effectively. It is not entirely clear whether this is actually the case [1], but nonetheless, because negative screens are often perceived this way, investment managers are often keen to ensure any screens that are applied are not so strict as to overly obstruct their activity. As a consequence, where this is the approach, conflict inevitably lies at the heart of the investment process.

Positive sustainability investing offers a better approach

An alternative way of addressing the Church’s concerns is to focus instead on industries whose purpose is inherently positive. As one commentator quoted by the BBC put it ‘What we do with our money is… part of how we follow Jesus’s example of siding with the poor and actually put our money into things like renewable energy, social housing, things that, in itself, will help society.’ By focusing on ‘good’ industries involved in environmental remediation, clean energy, air and water, education and healthcare you avoid the worst pitfalls associated with the ‘sin’ industries that so often trip up the ethical investor. There are still questions as to the standards of how these businesses operate and delicate judgements as to what industries should be considered ‘positive’, but this approach eliminates the inherent conflict between negative screens and investment.

As the Church knows only too well, many social and environmental problems are getting worse and the world needs more solutions. Companies supplying these solutions as a whole are growing faster than the broader market [2] . Surely, instead of wobbling along an ethical screening tightrope based on what proportion of revenues from pornography, weapons or usurious lending is considered acceptable, the Church and other ethical investors should be focusing their energies on the growth markets of the future and investing in companies that are doing well by actively doing good.


[1] There is a huge amount of conflicting research on this point. A good summary is available at http://tinyurl.com/yq6yxb

[2] For example the WHEB investment universe of 900 stocks in nine social and environmental themes has higher 5-year historical sales growth, higher 5-year historical diluted EPS growth and higher 1-year forecast sales growth than the MSCI World Index.

Recent posts

  • This year’s new killer
  • Seeing the bigger picture – Cooper Companies and myopia
  • What does 2020 hold for sustainable investing?
  • Politics playing catch-up on climate change
  • The great smog; London’s dirty air
  • Lessons from Woodford
  • Varian and the changing nature of cancer care
  • The bigger picture; declaring a climate emergency
  • Better out of it: the price of oil politics
  • Greta gets clean away
  • Archive

  • February 2020 (2)
  • January 2020 (1)
  • December 2019 (1)
  • November 2019 (2)
  • October 2019 (3)
  • September 2019 (1)
  • August 2019 (2)
  • July 2019 (3)
  • June 2019 (2)
  • May 2019 (3)
  • April 2019 (1)
  • March 2019 (1)
  • February 2019 (2)
  • January 2019 (3)
  • December 2018 (1)
  • November 2018 (2)
  • October 2018 (4)
  • September 2018 (2)
  • August 2018 (4)
  • July 2018 (1)
  • June 2018 (1)
  • May 2018 (1)
  • April 2018 (2)
  • March 2018 (2)
  • February 2018 (1)
  • January 2018 (1)
  • December 2017 (3)
  • November 2017 (1)
  • July 2017 (3)
  • June 2017 (1)
  • May 2017 (1)
  • April 2017 (1)
  • February 2017 (2)
  • November 2016 (1)
  • August 2016 (1)
  • July 2016 (1)
  • June 2016 (1)
  • May 2016 (1)
  • April 2016 (2)
  • February 2016 (1)
  • December 2015 (1)
  • November 2015 (3)
  • October 2015 (1)
  • September 2015 (1)
  • July 2015 (2)
  • April 2015 (2)
  • February 2015 (2)
  • December 2014 (2)
  • November 2014 (3)
  • October 2014 (4)
  • August 2014 (1)
  • July 2014 (3)
  • June 2014 (1)
  • April 2014 (2)
  • March 2014 (2)
  • February 2014 (3)
  • January 2014 (4)
  • December 2013 (4)
  • October 2013 (5)
  • September 2013 (3)
  • July 2013 (4)
  • June 2013 (2)
  • May 2013 (4)
  • April 2013 (2)
  • March 2013 (4)
  • February 2013 (6)
  • January 2013 (2)
  • December 2012 (3)
  • November 2012 (1)
  • October 2012 (4)
  • September 2012 (2)
  • August 2012 (1)
  • July 2012 (3)
  • June 2012 (3)
  • May 2012 (6)
  • April 2012 (4)
  • March 2012 (5)