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
The month of April enjoyed four back-to-back weeks of growth in financial adviser numbers, with this past week seeing a net rise of five.
ASIC has permanently banned a former Perth adviser after he made “materially misleading” statements to induce investors.
The Financial Services and Credit Panel has made a written order to a relevant provider after it gave advice regarding non-concessional contributions.
With the election taking place on Saturday (3 May), Adviser Ratings examines how the two major parties could shape the advice industry in the future.
