The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionSaints beat sinners for sustainable investing
by Tom Gallagher on Feb. 22, 2012
For most investors, "sustainability" isn't about doing the right thing. The conversation has evolved. It's about doing the smart thing. This demands an answer to the fundamental question: Does it pay to invest in sustainability?
The clever headline over at Bloomberg News naturally grabbed my attention. The bottom line: Firms that adopted environmentally and socially responsible policies significantly outperformed their peers.
With this whole contraception controversy still hanging around, one ancillary question that's been on my mind is this: If a Catholic institution contributes to its employees' 401(k) program or its pension programs (where they still exist) and the employee then buys "sin" stocks, is the Catholic institution directly supporting immoral behavior?
Said differently, do Catholic institutions attach the their "socially responsible investment policies" to the money it contributes to its employees' retirement accounts?
I have not heard of any Catholic institution applying such a restriction on the money it contributes to their employees' retirement accounts. On the other hand, for those so wound up about insurance companies providing "immoral" contraception coverage to its customers, it does not seem far-fetched for Catholic employers to start such a onerous requirement simply to be morally consistent.
According to the Bloomberg story:
Early results are in.
This chart, drawn from a Harvard Business School study, tracks the performance of 180 companies over 18 years. The 90 firms that adopted environmentally and socially responsible policies significantly outperformed their peers. Every dollar invested in a portfolio of sustainable companies (blue line) in 1993 would have grown to $22.60 by 2011. That beats the rise to $15.40 for a portfolio of companies less focused on sustainability (purple line).
The Harvard report, first released in November, is the most rigorous attempt yet to identify which companies were transforming themselves in sustainable ways before sustainability was "cool." It's also the first study to follow companies' performance for decades -- the kind of time frame needed to evaluate transformative long-term strategies -- authors Robert Eccles and George Serafeim said in an interview.
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
"These things take time to pay off," Serafeim said. "If you are short-term oriented, is this a good strategy? No, it won't pay off. But if you are patient, it will."
To be absolutely morally
To be absolutely morally consistent, Catholic institutions and Catholic employers should not own stock in companies that make contraceptives, import contraceptives, or sell contraceptives. They should take their money out of banks that provide banking services to these companies, advertising companies that make ads for these companies, and should boycott all the media that show those ads. They should avoid all financial houses that sell or promote stocks of these companies.
A Catholic hospital should refuse to accept reimbursements from individuals who are associated with any of the above and should refuse to accept reimbursements from insurance companies that have premiums paid from any individuals or companies involved. They should assure that no tax money they receive includes any taxes paid by these companies involved in the "evil" contraceptives nor from the individuals they employ or otherwise contract with for services.
We live in a world in which we "mingle" with all these evils. It is funny to me that the bishops think they have drawn some sort of significant line by attempting to disassociate the official Church by controlling those who depend on them for a livelihood. Maybe that is just the point. They cannot disassociate from the entire world, so they will try to control as much of it as they can. And what they can control are the least powerful.
ATF, then Catholics would be
ATF, then Catholics would be like the Shakers and just fizzle out. Every publicly traded company has links to something authentic Catholic teaching prohibits. There are degrees of separation and intentionality to consider, this is moral reasoning.
When the parish was selling a brand of chocolate linked to Planned Parenthood, we discovered that it was owned by a larger food corporation that was owned by another group owned by Warren Buffet. When we took the time to track down any contributions to PP we discovered that the candy outlets were only allowed to contribute locally and only to non-controversial causes. PLUS, Warren Buffet, who does support population control, takes his profits from ALL the companies he owns and puts a portion of his profits into an account, separate from any of his businesses, that he uses to promote population control.
Buffet - how much of our food, not counting candy, does he control?
We were about five degrees away from Buffet's activities and a moral theologian determined that we could sell the candy.
Bill Gates and his wife promote population control. The entire world, and I bet the Vatican, uses Microsoft in some way.
What then would you advise?
We live in a sinful world.
What would you suggest now?
Our food supply is so immoral at this point, just take the infusion of corn and sugar and salt into everything, what are we to do? Every time we buy a loaf of bread, what are we contributing to?
I await publication of your list of companies with which we as Catholic can do business with a clean conscience.
Oh, and don't forget the US military and our government - we should not be part of these entities either. Talk about anti-life.
Sweet Tooth, you seem to be
Sweet Tooth, you seem to be agreeing with ATF. It is not possible to disassociate, so why not accept the compromise on the contraceptive coverage?
Where did I say I agreed with
Where did I say I agreed with ATF?
I really want an answer ... Which you did not provide. You just pushed back at me for asking questions.
This is the problem: bishops and people who are too frightened to ask questions tell us what not to do but not what 'to do'.
And you are among them. You don't know the answer any more than I do.
I am seeking as answer; what are you doing?
Since when does asking questions mean agreement?
The bigger problem is that we, as a community of believers, do not ask enough questions.
I am sure you love St Thomas Aquinas. Guess what? He never met a qestion he didn't like.
The analogy you offer is
The analogy you offer is incorrect. The bishops would probably object, not to making donations that others would invest unethically, but to being required to invest in certain stocks rather than others. Nice try, though.
It is possible to view the
It is possible to view the money that the employer pays to the insurer as being equivalent to the money the employer contributes to the employee's 401K. In both cases, the employee also contributes. The bishops continue to object to having their payment be ASSOCIATED with insurance plans that would pay for contraception with no co-pay even when in terms of actual dollars, the contraceptive costs could easily be attributed to the non-Catholic employees' aggregate contributions and the insurer is dealing directly with the employee to arrange the coverage if it is the employee's desire to have it. Given their continuing objection, it would seem consistent that they would object to any rule that would require them to contribute to a 401K when the employee is free to invest in stocks that defy Catholic moral teaching. Of course, there is no rule requiring them to contribute to an employee's 401K. However, they have never said they objected to being required to provide insurance.
Actually, the worthless top
Actually, the worthless top Democrats came out on the ethical bottom! The Obamas gave less than 1% to charity and the Bidens gave less than a little more than $300. When will the bleeding heart liberals wake up to the fact that their earthly gods are worthless. Just as an example, Romney gave 16% to charity. Of course none of that was earned as a community organizer in Chicago where the real money is made. Ask any recent governor of Illinois. I think that we have reached a tipping point in the US where 48.5% of Americans pay zero income tax (and they are even getting slashes on their Social Security contributions), 43% or Americans get some form of federal assistance and 60% of all federal revenues go for entitlements programs. And those who contribute nothing at all (for whatever reason) are screaming that the rich, which already pay more than 1/2 of all taxes) are not paying their fair share. The game plan of the Democrats is to make all payments to the poor/out of work, etc. come from the government, and not from charity. That way, the recipients will all have to vote for the Democrats to keep on the government teats. This is ethically wrong. If you actually are in the slim 50.5% who still pay income tax, I would be interested in hearing from you. If you are not a producer but on the receiving end of the gravy train bon bons paid for by the taxpayers, I would also like to hear your justification for existence.
Post new comment