Environmentalists critique SRI funds
By Rebecca Evans
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has lashed out at the funds management industry for failing to comply with ethical investment disclosure obligations imposed by the Australian Securities andInvestments Commission.
“A comprehensive review of publicly available product disclosure statements shows that although many fund managers claim to take the environment and other ethical considerations into account, more often than not they fail to give any details on how this is done,” ACF corporate responsibility campaigner Charles Berger says.
“The guidelines are clear: if you claim to take ethical considerations into account, you have to tell investors what your criteria and methodology are. Except for the specialised SRI funds, most product issuers just aren’t doing that,” he says.
Berger also says investment managers are putting long-term investment returns at risk by not adequately integrating consideration of environmental and social issues in decision-making.
“Some funds seem to take the position that they’ll look at environmental or social issues if they present a ‘risk’,” he says.
Such funds will miss out on the investment opportunities of more visionary companies that obtain a long-term competitive advantage arising out of innovation and sustainability, Berger adds.
Recommended for you
Stakeholders in the professional year discussion underscore the challenges in the current pipeline and what is holding back licensees from taking on new candidates.
Colonial First State has partnered with JP Morgan Asset Management to make its inaugural private equity allocation, continuing the firm’s expansion into unlisted asset classes.
Two law firms have highlighted licensees’ responsibility to ensure they have sufficient cyber security measures in light of the enforcement action against Fortnum Private Wealth.
A former director has pleaded guilty to providing financial product advice without holding an AFSL which saw almost $2 million transferred to him.
