Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 456

Arms stocks don’t belong in our ESG funds

Excluding defence companies has long been common practice for responsible investors. At a minimum, most negatively screened 'ethical' funds exclude the controversial weapons banned under international law for example chemical weapons and cluster bombs. However, most funds take it a step further and exclude all companies (typically screened on a revenue basis) involved in weapons manufacture due to the preferences of many underlying investors.

The invasion of Ukraine has shocked the world and spurred many countries to increase their spending on defence. Germany has announced a €100bn spending package and a commitment to reach 2% of GDP spent on defence. Poland will raise its defence spending to 3% of GDP starting next year, and Lithuania, Romania, Sweden and Denmark have all announced dramatic spending increases. Even in Australia, Scott Morrison announced a plan to increase the size of the Australian Defence Force by 30% over the next 18 years.

Whilst the reaction of these countries is not unexpected, it has been fascinating to follow the conversations from within the investment industry about whether armaments could or should now be considered appropriate environmental, social, and governance (ESG), or even impact investments. We have seen calls for the EU to recognise the defence industry as a positive contribution to ‘Social Sustainability’ under the EU Taxonomy which has been convened by the European Union to define the ESG investment rules.

According to the UN Global Compact, social sustainability is about identifying and managing business impacts, both positive and negative, on people. Within social sustainability, human rights are the main component that would be relevant to questions of defence. Protecting and promoting human rights would be seen as a positive contribution to social sustainability.

A recent report from Citi seems to indicate that they see no challenge in applying this definition: “Defence is likely to be increasingly seen as a necessity that facilitates ESG as an enterprise as well as maintaining peace stability and other social goods.” Similar conclusions have been reached in the financial press: if something is obviously vital to maintaining peace how can it also cause social harm?

We find this approach astonishing. The defence function of governments is an important one, and they do rely on private actors for components and equipment. But the social sustainability of their use will be entirely dependent on how a government manages its defence function.  We don’t need to look too far into history to find examples of actions taken in the name of defence which has resulted in significant social harm.

Taking the view that weapons contribute to positive impacts that outweigh the harm is a challenging conclusion to reach in our view. Not only does it require analysis of the customer base, but it also requires normative judgements of who are the good and bad actors, and which conflicts are justified. We prefer to consider the issue from the perspective of risk of negative impact, rather than taking a normative view. With this lens, it is very difficult to reach a conclusion about the net positive impact of these activities given the inherently high risk of human harm, particularly given that the companies can’t influence their product’s end-use.

Investors have two main ways of creating positive impact: influencing the cost of capital and engagement. These have evidence of success in areas such as climate and diversity. In the defence industry, they risk being significantly less effective.  Defence is a government function. Defence expenditure and budgets are set by governments and those spending decisions are likely to outweigh any impact on the cost of capital from investor decisions. Secondly, private enterprise doesn’t influence defence strategy, it merely acts as part of the governmental supply chain. It is difficult to see how investors could have any influence over the use of these products to ensure they only achieve social good. More importantly, it’s questionable whether we would want either capital markets or the companies themselves to have influence over defence decisions.

The debate has made clear that there is still a lack of clarity on the difference between impact and ESG investing. The latter is about risk mitigation and the sustainability of internal operations. Investors who choose to invest in the defence sector should certainly consider material ESG risks in their decision-making and engage on those matters. Impact is about furthering social sustainability, and this is where it is hard to make the case for the defence sector.

Finally, there is a question about why now? This conflict is different. Its potential scale and the nuclear threat are unlike anything that we have seen in recent years. Who it’s affecting and our ability to identify with the victims of this crisis may also have played a role in the sudden emergence of the “defence is ESG” claim. But the need for defence is not new. Larger budgets may improve the growth opportunity and for some that will make defence a more attractive investment. However, it doesn’t change the underlying principles of ESG and impact investing, and it doesn’t justify the conclusion that defence contributes to social good more so now than it did before this conflict.

 

Victoria Maclean is Associate Fund Manager, Pengana WHEB Sustainable Impact Fund

 

6 Comments
michael
May 08, 2022

The author thinks arms companies fail the ESG hurdle because they sell to governments, who may use the weapons poorly.
Governments use everything poorly, from time to time. Perhaps constantly, in some fields.

You should exclude every company that does business with governments.

Pete
May 08, 2022

I agree with all the people who have responded to this article. Defense is essential for peace. No nuclear state as far as I know has ever been attacked. The most concerning issue about this article is the naivety of the writer and the possibility that ESG supporters would accept this argument. This strange logic is the very reason I would not invest in any ESG fund.

AlanB
May 07, 2022

It is entirely ethical for Ukraine to defend itself against Russian invasion.
What were Ukrainians supposed to defend themselves with? Guns or sustainably grown turnips?
So investing in arms industries can be an ethical investing choice because self defence against aggression is ethical.
I suggest ESG managers should revise their ESG guidelines to permit investment in arms industries, but not invest in countries that use arms to violate human rights in their own countries and/or launch 'special military operations' against neighbouring countries.

Laurent
May 05, 2022

SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM (in latin, "if you want peace, prepare for war") is one of the most ancient piece of wisdom of the Western world (just after KNOW THYSELF).
To have peace, you must invest in deterrence:
- You need strong military forces (you need to spend around 2% of GDP per year).
- You need strong military industry to ensure independence from unreliable allies (I am not saying that French submarines are better than US submarines but we are already too dependent on US technology).
- You need to foster strong support from the population: you need to have kids sing the national anthem every day, you need people to repeat pledges of allegiance in all official ceremonies, you need to celebrate war heroes, you need to reject short-sighted anti-war rhetoric (they are always anti-Australian anyway).
When disagreements mount, when tensions rise, it is to late to call for war if not prepared.
If you want peace, prepare for war.

Matt
May 05, 2022

Applaudable from a purely theoretical and puritan perspective but totally naive to the context of human history and behaviour which has long demonstrated aggressors target weaker pacifists. I love the idea of a world without weapons, but there will always be bad actors willing to go against that ideal. The article says, sure, defence is important, but we're not going to pay for it through our funds. Instead, we'll price the capital out of the market, make it a government responsibility...where taxpayers end up funding it anyway. There's no easy answer here. No idealistic outcome. This article has raised my hackles because it purports they will be holier than thou...which is perhaps more for marketing purposes than for the benefit of society.

Peter Bayley
May 05, 2022

Wait till we are attacked, and then review your ESG viewpoint.
Would Australians refuse to invest in defence when attacked in WWII?

 

Leave a Comment:

     

RELATED ARTICLES

Beyond the acronym, navigating important ESG choices

The impacts of military and geopolitical crises on share markets

Elevating responsible investing to solve real world challenges

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Lessons when a fund manager of the year is down 25%

Every successful fund manager suffers periods of underperformance, and investors who jump from fund to fund chasing results are likely to do badly. Selecting a manager is a long-term decision but what else?

2022 election survey results: disillusion and disappointment

In almost 1,000 responses, our readers differ in voting intentions versus polling of the general population, but they have little doubt who will win and there is widespread disappointment with our politics.

Now you can earn 5% on bonds but stay with quality

Conservative investors who want the greater capital security of bonds can now lock in 5% but they should stay at the higher end of credit quality. Rises in rates and defaults mean it's not as easy as it looks.

30 ETFs in one ecosystem but is there a favourite?

In the last decade, ETFs have become a mainstay of many portfolios, with broad market access to most asset types, as well as a wide array of sectors and themes. Is there a favourite of a CEO who oversees 30 funds?

Meg on SMSFs – More on future-proofing your fund

Single-member SMSFs face challenges where the eventual beneficiaries (or support team in the event of incapacity) will be the member’s adult children. Even worse, what happens if one or more of the children live overseas?

Betting markets as election predictors

Believe it or not, betting agencies are in the business of making money, not predicting outcomes. Is there anything we can learn from the current odds on the election results?

Latest Updates

Superannuation

'It’s your money' schemes transfer super from young to old

Policy proposals allow young people to access their super for a home bought from older people who put the money back into super. It helps some first buyers into a home earlier but it may push up prices.

Investment strategies

Rising recession risk and what it means for your portfolio

In this environment, safe-haven assets like Government bonds act as a diversifier given the uncorrelated nature to equities during periods of risk-off, while offering a yield above term deposit rates.

Investment strategies

‘Multidiscipline’: the secret of Bezos' and Buffett’s wild success

A key attribute of great investors is the ability to abstract away the specifics of a particular domain, leaving only the important underlying principles upon which great investments can be made.

Superannuation

Keep mandatory super pension drawdowns halved

The Transfer Balance Cap limits the tax concessions available in super pension funds, removing the need for large, compulsory drawdowns. Plus there are no requirements to draw money out of an accumulation fund.

Shares

Confession season is upon us: What’s next for equity markets

Companies tend to pre-position weak results ahead of 30 June, leading to earnings downgrades. The next two months will be critical for investors as a shift from ‘great expectations’ to ‘clear explanations’ gets underway.

Economy

Australia, the Lucky Country again?

We may have been extremely unlucky with the unforgiving weather plaguing the East Coast of Australia this year. However, on the economic front we are by many measures in a strong position relative to the rest of the world.

Exchange traded products

LIC discounts widening with the market sell-off

Discounts on LICs and LITs vary with market conditions, and many prominent managers have seen the value of their assets fall as well as discount widen. There may be opportunities for gains if discounts narrow.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2022 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.