Blog Layout

From investing to positive impact

By Mathew Browning

The origins of responsible and ethical investing lie with religious groups, that sought to invest according to their moral principles. Their strategy was to avoid harmful products or activities such as the slave trade, alcohol, tobacco and gambling.

The scope, definition and adoption of responsible investing have expanded over time to encompass many aspects of society, the natural world and corporate behaviour. From the 1960s onward, US colleges decided not to invest in apartheid South Africa, while a similar shift is now underway with fossil fuels.


However, the rise of responsibly and ethically charged investment is not due to any single issue or event: an ever-shifting landscape of corporate scandals, environmental concerns, changing societal demands and rapid transformations in technology and business models make for constantly evolving dynamics.


Defining responsible investing

Gone are the days when investments were assessed solely on the basis of risk and return. “Non-financial” factors are now of growing importance, but the terminology and methods can be confusing. When “responsible investing” is discussed, a jumble of terms are used, often interchangeably, when in fact they may only partly overlap, or have slightly different meanings.


So what is “responsible investing”? A useful starting point is the Responsible Investment Association of Australasia’s (RIAA) definition: responsible investing is an umbrella term used to describe “an investment process which takes environmental, social, governance (ESG) or ethical considerations into account”.


This raises an important point: while ethical investing comes under the umbrella term “responsible investing”, not all responsible investing strategies will take ethical considerations into account.


Let’s consider “ESG integration”, the most commonly used tool among modern-day investment managers seeking to adopt a responsible approach. ESG recognises that non-traditional environmental, social and governance factors have financial relevance. But from an ethical standpoint, ESG is not enough: it is only concerned about the financial implications of factors such as pollution, carbon footprint, or labour relations for companies – not whether they are right or wrong.


Take an investment manager who’s weighing up a possible investment in energy giant BP. ESG analysis would involve considering the company’s carbon footprint and the possible effects of future carbon taxes on company profitability, but not a decision on whether BP’s business activity is fundamentally good or bad for the world. It is quite possible for companies that operate in detrimental industries to have top ESG ratings. For example, Aristocrat Leisure Limited – Australia’s largest gambling machine (pokies) manufacturer – has an ESG rating of AA, the second-highest rating possible. 


An investment based on principles

Ethical investment goes both further and deeper than ESG analysis. An ethical investment strategy uses a range of tools, including ESG analysis, but also applies its own ethical filter based on the investor’s own principles. This can get complicated, because what is considered “ethical” can vary among investors and organisations.


Ethical investment involves research and judgement as well as standards. It involves asking questions, gathering facts, and weighing up the potential ethical implications of investment decisions. How do you conduct a deeper assessment of an international supply chain that might, on the surface, meet ESG standards?


Take Woolworths Group, a large Australian retailer that is often screened out by responsible investors due to its alcohol production and poker machine operations. Has the company’s decision to spin off these businesses made it eligible for investment? What about a retailer that sells some tobacco products?


Linking investment decisions to impact

While ethical investing has gained in popularity, the hurdles of financial and non-financial impact have to date prevented more mainstream acceptance. Many studies have shown that investing ethically doesn’t mean sacrificing returns, but what about the non-financial impact? Can the societal benefit derived from investing in one security over another be quantified and measured?


Ethical investing can be used as a tool to benefit humanity and the natural world, but how can we be certain whether it is making a discernible difference to lowering greenhouse gases, tackling poverty, or increasing gender equality? 


The most commonly cited barrier to progress is not a lack of measurement, but rather the failure to adopt a single, universal standard – which increases investor trust and confidence. Currently a number of different standards are used to measure impact, including the Global Reporting Initiative and the Impact Reporting and Investment Standards. There is growing demand for a universal approach to measuring impact, and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have emerged as the clear favourite for a measurement framework.


The SDGs were officially launched in 2015 with the aim of creating a new global agenda for sustainable development. The 17 goals were developed by governments, but government action alone won’t be enough to achieve them. The United Nations has estimated that meeting the 17 SDGs will require global investment of between $US5 trillion and $US7 trillion every year until 2030.


UN Sustainable Development Goals in practice

Acceptance of global SDGs provides a clear call to action for the private sector and a much needed framework for responsible investors. Some of the SDGs are easier to contribute to than others; sometimes it is easier to address an SDG through investment decisions; sometimes it is easier to incorporate the SDG in active ownership. But either way, through them, investors can contribute to solutions.

Several funds have joined together to establish an AI-driven SDG investment platform – the Sustainable Development Investments Asset Owner Platform. The platform uses the definitions and taxonomy defined by the asset owners, and turns those rules and methodology into classifications for 8,000 companies. Asset owners can integrate this data across all investment processes – quantitative and fundamental – and monitor, map and steer their portfolios.


The Impact Management Project (IMP), a forum for building global consensus on how to measure and manage impacts, has also been a prominent advocate of utilising the SDGs. The IMP provides a framework to understand the impact performance of different enterprises and investments against the SDGs and, with a network of over 2,000 organisations globally, will be integral in establishing standards for measurement, management and reporting. 


We expect and support further acceptance of the UN SDGs as a sustainability framework and an effective way of not only managing risk (social, environmental, governance) in a portfolio but also driving growth in investing that benefits people and planet.




Mathew Browning is the executive director, and chief executive officer at U Ethical. He is the former general manager of The Myer Family Company, and has over 25 years’ executive experience in financial, property and professional services in roles across Australia, Asia and the UK.

This article is taken from the recently published digital book

Australia's Nobel Laureates Vol III State of our Innovation Nation: 2021 and Beyond

click here

By By Harley Paroulaksis, CEO Paspalis, CEO Darwin Innovation Hub 20 May, 2023
Getting asked what we look for in deals is one of the most common questions I get as an investment manager.
20 May, 2023
The Small Business Association of Australia is dedicated to supporting SMEs, acting as their voice to government and helping them connect, grow, and prosper well into the future.
By By Shiv Meka 20 May, 2023
Sensibles may sound like science fiction, but this revolutionary technology is making waves in aged-care facilities, and has the potential to transform health monitoring at scale.
28 Mar, 2023
Alice Springs and the deserts of Central Australia don’t sound like a food basket, but they are for businesswoman and bush foods innovator Rayleen Brown.
By Gillian Cumming 28 Mar, 2023
A new report aims to lay the foundations for a deeper and more meaningful and equitable relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in the mining transition sector.
By Dr Saraid Billiards - CEO of the Association of Australian Medical Research Institutes. 27 Mar, 2023
If the health and medical research sector in Australia is to move forward, it must address gender equity, diversity, and inclusion- which means making the sector a safe and inclusive workspace for all.
27 Jan, 2023
A ground-breaking sheep technology system is bettering the businesses and lives of Australian sheep breeders thanks to a revolutionary combination of software, hardware, and support never before combined into one cohesive unit.
27 Jan, 2023
ANCA took an early view to look beyond Australia’s shores whilst developing advanced manufacturing technologies now viewed as ‘business as usual’
By Andrew Downs 27 Jan, 2023
As Australia grapples with a critical skills shortage, many are now encouraging young people to embrace a career in the trades, where a wealth of opportunities awaits.
By By Ben Kehoe 27 Jan, 2023
In 2016 I published a blog article titled Moonshots for Australia: 7 For Now. It’s one of many I have posted on business and innovation in Australia. In that book, I highlighted a number of Industries of the Future among a number of proposed Moonshots. I self-published a book, Innovation in Australia – Creating prosperity for future generations, in 2019, with a follow-up COVID edition in 2020. There is no doubt COVID is causing massive disruption. Prior to COVID, there was little conversation about National Sovereignty or supply chains. Even now, these topics are fading, and we remain preoccupied with productivity and jobs! My motivation for this writing has been the absence of a coherent narrative for Australia’s business future. Over the past six years, little has changed. The Australian ‘psyche’ regarding our political and business systems is programmed to avoid taking a long-term perspective. The short-term nature of Government (3 to 4-year terms), the short-term horizon of the business system (driven by shareholder value), the media culture (infotainment and ‘gotcha’ games), the general Australian population’s cynical perspective and a preoccupation with a lifestyle all create a malaise of strategic thinking and conversation. Ultimately, it leads to a leadership vacuum at all levels. In recent years we have seen the leadership of some of our significant institutions failing to live up to the most basic standards, with Royal Commissions, Inquiries and investigations consuming excessive time and resources. · Catholic Church and other religious bodies · Trade Unions · Banks (and businesses generally, take casinos, for example) · the Australian Defence Force · the Australian cricket teams · our elected representatives and the staff of Parliament House As they say, “A fish rots from the head!” At best, the leadership behaviour in those institutions could be described as unethical and, at worst….just bankrupt! In the last decade, politicians have led us through a game of “leadership by musical chairs” – although, for now, it has stabilised. However, there is still an absence of a coherent narrative about business and wealth creation. It is a challenge. One attempt to provide such a narrative has been the Intergenerational Reports produced by our federal Government every few years since 2002. The shortcomings of the latest Intergenerational Report Each Intergenerational Report examines the long-term sustainability of current government policies and how demographic, technological, and other structural trends may affect the economy and the budget over the next 40 years. The fifth and most recent Intergenerational Report released in 2021 (preceded by Reports in 2002, 2007, 2010 and 2015) provides a narrative about Australia’s future – in essence, it is an extension of the status quo. The Report also highlights three key insights: 1. First, our population is growing slower and ageing faster than expected. 2. The Australian economy will continue to grow, but slower than previously thought. 3. While Australia’s debt is sustainable and low by international standards, the ageing of our population will pressure revenue and expenditure. However, its release came and went with a whimper. The recent Summit on (what was it, Jobs and Skills and productivity?) also seems to have made the difference of a ‘snowflake’ in hell in terms of identifying our long-term challenges and growth industries. Let’s look back to see how we got here and what we can learn. Australia over the last 40 years During Australia’s last period of significant economic reform (the late 1980s and early 1990s), there was a positive attempt at building an inclusive national narrative between Government and business. Multiple documents were published, including: · Australia Reconstructed (1987) – ACTU · Enterprise Bargaining a Better Way of Working (1989) – Business Council of Australia · Innovation in Australia (1991) – Boston Consulting Group · Australia 2010: Creating the Future Australia (1993) – Business Council of Australia · and others. There were workshops, consultations with industry leaders, and conferences across industries to pursue a national microeconomic reform agenda. Remember these concepts? · global competitiveness · benchmarking · best practice · award restructuring and enterprising bargaining · training, management education and multiskilling. This agenda was at the heart of the business conversation. During that time, the Government encouraged high levels of engagement with stakeholders. As a result, I worked with a small group of training professionals to contribute to the debate. Our contribution included events and publications over several years, including What Dawkins, Kelty and Howard All Agree On – Human Resources Strategies for Our Nation (published by the Australian Institute of Training and Development). Unfortunately, these long-term strategic discussions are nowhere near as prevalent among Government and industry today. The 1980s and 1990s were a time of radical change in Australia. It included: · floating the $A · deregulation · award restructuring · lowering/abolishing tariffs · Corporatisation and Commercialisation Ross Garnaut posits that the reforms enabled Australia to lead the developed world in productivity growth – given that it had spent most of the 20th century at the bottom of the developed country league table. However, in his work, The Great Reset, Garnaut says that over the next 20 years, our growth was attributable to the China mining boom, and from there, we settled into “The DOG days” – Australia moved to the back of a slow-moving pack! One unintended consequence of opening our economy to the world is the emasculation of the Australian manufacturing base. The manic pursuit of increased efficiency, lower costs, and shareholder value meant much of the labour-intensive work was outsourced. Manufacturing is now less than 6% of our GDP , less than half of what it was 30 years ago!
More Posts
Share by: