WHEB Commentary

Is Amazon really a sustainable investment?


The WHEB investment strategy has evolved considerably over the past fifteen years. But the core has always been quite simple. We invest in companies that provide solutions to sustainability challenges.  The companies’ products and services are good for society or the environment, and because of that, they have the potential to grow profits and generate strong investment returns.

That’s the idea. And there is beauty in the simplicity. It shouldn’t take too much effort to see whether a company is genuinely having a positive impact.

The investment community has moved further in our direction in the last five years than we ever thought was possible. But we are still often amazed that some investors make this so complicated.

During the quarter we read some great research from Morningstar and Morgan Stanley. They looked at the top holdings in EU registered funds classified as “Sustainable” under the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulations (SFDR).

Under SFDR, sustainable funds should mostly be classified under either Article 8 or Article 9. Technically, Article 8 funds promote environmental and social characteristics.  Article 9 funds on the other hand have a sustainable investment objective. You can think of them as lighter vs. darker green, or ESG vs. impact, although neither distinction is perfect.

Alongside the names of many holdings highlighted in the analysis that make logical sense, there were plenty that hit the eye as odd.  News this month also made one name in particular stand out.  Amazon is apparently held by 30% of the Article 8 funds the researchers looked at. More incredibly, 13% of the Article 9 funds somehow justified including it too.

To include Amazon in an Article 8 fund, investors need to look past quite a roster of troubling supply chain issues. These are environmental, social and governance (ESG) concerns, which we separate from how it actually generates revenue – its impact. Aggressive tax and labour practices, and ubiquitous plastics and packaging use, all look like pretty meaningful ESG red flags to us.

But we classify WHEB’s strategy under Article 9 of SFDR. To include Amazon in an Article 9 fund is an even bigger stretch.

Also in June, some intrepid undercover reporting by ITN uncovered the horrors of Amazon’s destruction policy. At a single site in Scotland, they found that Amazon was targeting the obliteration of 130,000 perfectly good items every week.  Surplus to requirements, these products were mostly unused and largely still in their wrapping. It is not clear how many were even having parts recycled.

This is the problem of Amazon in plain sight: it is at the centre of rampant, turbo-charged consumerism.  Their whole retail business is geared up to make it as easy as possible for everyone to consume more.  The smallest number of clicks, the cheapest products, the easiest returns policy. Whatever they can do to encourage you to buy things that you only half-want. And even some that you don’t.

And to feed this beast, they constantly push competition on price alone. Which means, running the kind of stock policy which results in throwing away perfectly good stuff.

And it also means turning to manufacturing sources where the true environmental and social cost of the production isn’t reflected in the price.

Analysis from Marketplace last year estimated that somewhere between 28% and 58% of Amazon’s sales volumes came from Chinese sellers. This number excludes resellers of Chinese products. How many of those suppliers operate to standards that their western consumers would approve of is an open question.  And that is before you even factor in the emissions to ship those products to us.

So this is what Amazon does. In the rather plaintive words of the Greenpeace activist interviewed in the ITN film: “Each of these items requires natural resources and carbon emissions and human labour to make. That is why, as long as Amazon’s business model relies on this kind of disposal culture… things are only going to get worse.”

To us, this feels a very long way from a sustainable investment objective. We look for a lockstep relationship between unit sales growth and positive outcomes for society and the environment. For us, growing consumption is nearer the opposite of that description.

 

 

 

Recent posts

  • We’ve been warned – climate crisis and weak links in the supply chain
  • Is ESG a waste of time?
  • Code Red from the IPCC
  • Extreme weather – a wake-up call on climate mitigation and adaptation
  • The price of civilisation
  • Delivering carbon reductions – moving beyond the targets
  • Is Amazon really a sustainable investment?
  • What is the best way to tackle plastic waste?
  • Deliveroo – bad timing, bad ESG, or just a bad idea?
  • Kingspan and the Grenfell tower fire
  • Archive

  • October 2021 (1)
  • September 2021 (1)
  • August 2021 (2)
  • July 2021 (3)
  • June 2021 (1)
  • May 2021 (1)
  • April 2021 (3)
  • March 2021 (1)
  • February 2021 (1)
  • January 2021 (3)
  • December 2020 (1)
  • November 2020 (2)
  • October 2020 (3)
  • September 2020 (1)
  • August 2020 (2)
  • July 2020 (3)
  • June 2020 (2)
  • May 2020 (1)
  • April 2020 (3)
  • March 2020 (1)
  • 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)