UK High Court clarifies steps charities can take to align
their investments with their values
A new High Court judgement has ruled on trustees’ ability to
align their investments with their charities’ values. The judgment has clarified that trustees
‘need to’ undertake a balancing exercise between maximising their returns and
avoiding investments that could contradict their aims. We believe that this ruling should make
trustees more confident in their ability to align their investments with their
charitable missions. However, we do not believe that they necessarily have to
sacrifice returns to achieve this.
Should charities be able to align their investment
strategies to their charitable purpose even if that means excluding many
potential investments?
In a new judgement the UK's High
Court has ruled that the trustees for the two charities can align their
investments with their mission even if this involves financial risk by
excluding a large part of the market.
The case, brought by the Ashden
Trust and the Mark Leonard Trust (two of the Sainsbury Family Charitable
Trusts), sought clarity on whether the charities could align their investments
with the goals of the Paris Climate Change Agreement. The ruling stated that
this was possible, even if it had a dramatic impact upon their portfolio, as it
was reasonable to suggest that investing in companies that are not aligned with
the goal to limit global temperature rises would contradict their objectives in
regard to the environment and the relief of poverty.
What is the existing guidance for trustees?
The existing guidance for trustees
is set out by the Charity Commission in CC14.
This states that trustees of any
charity can decide to align their portfolios with their mission (referred to as
ethical investing), even if the investment might provide a lower rate of return
than an alternative investment. However, a charity’s trustees must be able to justify
why it is in the charity’s best interests to invest in this way. The law
permits the following reasons:
· A particular investment conflicts with the aims of the charity; or
· The charity might lose supporters or beneficiaries if it does not
invest ethically; or
· There is no significant financial detriment.
Under this guidance, trustees must ensure that
any decision that they take about adopting an ethical investment approach can
be justified within the criteria set out by the Charity Commission. They must
be clear about the reasons why certain companies or sectors are excluded or
included. Trustees should also evaluate the effect of any proposed policy on
potential investment returns and balance any risk of lower returns against the
risk of alienating support or damage to reputation.
This guidance is based upon ‘the
Bishop of Oxford case’ which is the only reported case dealing with ‘so-called’
ethical investments by charities. It was
brought by the then Bishop of Oxford (and two other priests) against the Church
Commissioners in relation to their investment policy concerning South Africa.
The case was heard in 1991, at the time South Africa was transitioning to
democracy and there were a range of views within the Church of England about
the appropriateness of investing in South Africa.
What does the new ruling mean?
This landmark ruling reinterprets the
Bishop of Oxford case. Most visibly this relates to climate change which was
not considered in the original case. The ruling clarifies the extent to which
climate change can considered to be in conflict to a broad range of charitable
objects and thus a large number of charities can take action to align their
portfolio with, or use their investments to contribute to, the goal of limiting
temperature rises. On the back of this ruling, we expect that more and more
charities will seek to align their investments to support climate action even
if environmental protection is not explicitly stated within their charitable
objectives.
However, the ruling has further
implications – beyond climate change - as to how charities can align their
assets with their mission. It states that ‘the power to invest must … be
exercised to further the [charities’] charitable purposes’ and that whilst this
‘is normally achieved’ by maximising financial returns trustees ‘should’ avoid
direct conflicts between their investments and their purpose. It goes further
to state that trustees ‘need to’ exercise ‘good judgement’ by balancing this requirement
against the risk of financial detriment.
We therefore believe that the
ruling will create a more permissive environment for charities to put their
purpose at the forefront of their investment strategy and opens the door to
charities adopting increasingly ambitious investment approaches where climate
change and their values are concerned.
How can charities align their portfolios with their
values?
There are several ways that
charities can take steps to integrate their values into their investments.
These include:
- negative screening: this means avoiding
investment in companies or sectors or companies undertaking a particular
activity or operating in a way which may be harmful to the charity’s interests.
- positive screening: this means investing
all or part of an investment portfolio in companies or sectors which reflect a
charity’s values in areas like environmental protection, health, employment or
human rights, or in a wider range of companies that demonstrate good corporate
social responsibility and governance; for example, positive screening might
involve only investing in companies that have targets/proven records for
reducing their carbon footprint
- stakeholder activism: this is where
a charity, as a shareholder, exercises its voting rights in order to influence
a company’s policies in a way that reflects its values and ethos; this could
mean that a charity might invest in companies whose environmental policies it
does not approve of in order to encourage more responsible business practices
within those companies - it is also possible to engage in stakeholder activism
as a programme related or mixed motive investment.
Each of these approaches are included in the
management of CCLA’s pooled funds for charities.
Every CCLA pooled fund adopts some form of
ethical restriction, designed specifically to meet the needs of the charities
that invest in them. We also seek to dedicate capital to activities – such as
the provision of renewable energy – that will provide a market rate return and
a social and/or environmental good. Finally, we seek to be active owners of the
assets that we manage; engaging and voting in a way that is designed to improve
companies’ sustainability.
How should we consider climate change after this ruling?
Whilst the clarity bestowed by the
new ruling will be helpful to charity trustees, we have long-seen climate
change as a material financial issue for investors. If unmitigated, climate
change will
continue to lead to increased poverty in many
low-income countries, erratic weather patterns and accelerated biodiversity
loss. For instance, loss of biodiversity, natural resource crises are all
listed by the World Economic Forum as key global risks, that are impacted by
the physical effects of climate change, for companies and the functioning of
the global economy. Because of this it is also a material threat to the
functioning of investment markets and shareholder value. This is a critical
issue for investors and for this reason we have long supported the effort to
limit global temperatures to substantially below 2 degrees above pre-industrial
levels. For this reason, we believe that investors have a fiduciary duty to
push for accelerated climate action and begin to take steps to protect their
portfolios from the financial risks it will cause.
As a founding member of the Net
Zero Asset Managers’ initiative, CCLA has committed to seek to achieve net-zero
emissions portfolios for all our assets under management no later than 2050. We
therefore already help charities align their investments with positive climate
action in line with the Paris Agreement. Specifically, we do this within our
Act, Assess, Align framework in the following ways:
- Act: We act to increase the pace of
climate action by leading impactful engagements with the companies in which we
invest and push policymakers for progressive regulation and legislation.
- Assess: We assess companies’ position
against the energy transition as part of our investment process and avoid those
that do the most harm. CCLA has no direct investment in fossil fuel companies[1] in
carbon intensive sectors are assessed against sector specific decarbonisation
requirements against decarbonisation scenarios. As part of our commitment to
real-world change, any business that is not assessed as being aligned with a
‘below 2 degrees’ future is prioritised for engagement. The efficacy of this
engagement is monitored by the Investment Committee who can mandate divestment
if sufficient progress is not being made.
- Align: We align our portfolios with our
clients’ specific climate requirements and disclose information about our
approach to managing the risks and opportunities associated with climate
change.
We are therefore well equipped to
continue helping charities achieve their goals whilst aligning their
investments with their values including those concerning climate change.
More information about our climate
approach can be found here.
Important Information
This
document is issued for information purposes only. It does not constitute the
provision of financial, investment or other professional advice. Past
performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. The value of
investments and the income derived from them may fall as well as rise.
Investors may not get back the amount originally invested and may lose money.
Any forward looking statements are based upon CCLA's current opinions,
expectations and projections. Such opinions, expectations or projections may be
subject to change at any time. CCLA undertakes no obligations to update or
revise these. Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated.
CCLA
Investment Management Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial
Conduct Authority.
[1]
Defined as companies that generate more than 5% of their revenue from the
extraction of energy coal or tar sands or companies that generate more than 10%
of their revenue from the extraction and/or refining of oil and gas